Muscle-Splitting Transaxillary Revision Breast Augmentation—A Single Surgeon’s Experience

Stümpfle, Rubem Lang; Piccinini, Pedro Salomão; Zanin, Eduardo Madalosso

doi:10.1007/s00266-021-02179-6

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26,30 Timely published reports and modifications have allowed safety and reduced the complication rates with reproducible results. 6,8,[33][34][35][36][37][38]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mastopexy: A l3-year Analysis and Outcome of Primary and Secondary Procedures

Khan¹

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The muscle splitting technique is a submuscular pocket used for augmentation mammoplasty. Its use and results following primary and secondary procedures are presented. Methods: A retrospective study that analyzed complication and revision rates following primary and secondary mastopexy with augmentation in a muscle splitting pocket performed between April 2007 and March 2020 was carried out. Data were divided into two groups: primary and secondary single-stage mastopexies with augmentation. Results: A total of 169 patients had a primary procedure and 49 had secondary procedures. The mean ages of patients in the primary and secondary were 32.3 ± 9.89 and 38.2 ± 9.63 years, respectively. Five (3.0%) patients had periprosthetic or wound infections in the primary group when compared with 0% in secondary surgery group. Wound breakdown was seen in 13 (7.7%) patients with a primary procedure compared with one patient (2%) with a secondary procedure. One patient had partial nipple loss and another had total nipple loss in the primary group (1.2%) when compared with one patient (2.0%) who had partial nipple loss in the secondary group. Revision surgeries were carried out in 16 (10.1%) of the primary procedures compared with five (10.2%) of the secondary procedures. Conclusion: Even though there was a higher prevalence of complications in the primary procedures group than in the secondary procedures group, the overall complications following muscle splitting mastopexy with augmentation are within an acceptable range.

show abstract

“…26,30 Timely published reports and modifications have allowed safety and reduced the complication rates with reproducible results. 6,8,[33][34][35][36][37][38]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mastopexy: A l3-year Analysis and Outcome of Primary and Secondary Procedures

Khan¹

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23,31 MSBP also allows transaxillary approach, which has been used for primary and revision surgeries. 22,24 The complication and revision rates in mastopexy with augmentation in MSBP in its first article were reported at 13.5% and 4.5%, respectively, with a 3-year follow-up. Subsequently, a 9-and 13-year follow-up showed complication rates of 11.1% and 13.1%, respectively, where revision surgeries were performed in 10.1% of primary procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 23 , 31 MSBP also allows transaxillary approach, which has been used for primary and revision surgeries. 22 , 24 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11,12,17 MSBP safety and its relative advantages has allowed its use in mastopexy with augmentation and it is widely used through inframammary, areolar, and axillary incisions with no added risk of revision or bottoming down. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Layered mastopexy with augmentation is a modification of MSBP. 26,27 The current article describes the development and progression of single-stage mastopexy with augmentation using MSBP, and the complications and revision rates between layered mastopexy and augmentation were compared with those of the nonlayered approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

Khan¹

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Single-stage layered mastopexy with augmentation is a modification of muscle-splitting pocket that reduces risk of complications and revision rate. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all the consecutive cases, performed by a single surgeon, from March 2007 to August 2019, was conducted. All patients had surgery with superomedial pedicle in an approved facility. The patients were divided into group A whose implants were placed through the mastopexy incision, and group B whose implants were placed first and access closed prior to mastopexy. Results: Nonlayered group A included 116 patients and layered group B included 102 patients. Groups A and B had a mean age of 32.3 + 9.70 and 34.8 + 10.39 years (range, 20–66), respectively (P value 0.070). In groups A and B, 95 (81.9%) and 74 (72.5%) patients underwent primary and 21 (18.1%) and 28 (27.5%) patients underwent secondary procedures, respectively (P value 0.099). There were no hematomas in group A and two patients had hematoma in group B (P value 0.218). In group A, one patient experienced periprosthetic infection with none in group B (P value 0.41). Wound breakdown was observed in ten (8.6%) patients in group A and four (3.9%) patients in group B (P value 0.128). In group A, there was a partial or complete nipple loss in two (1.7%) and none in group B (P value 0.412). In group A, 15 (12.9%) underwent revision surgery and six (6.5%) in group B (P value 0.127). Conclusion: Layered mastopexy with augmentation provides improved safety, fewer complications and revisions with adequate results.

show abstract

“…Performing breast augmentation through an abdominoplasty incision with or without liposuction for better body contouring may incur benefits beyond the obvious single surgical scar. 12,13 Possible hematomas or seromas can be allowed to drain into the area of abdominal undermining and subsequently aspirated, without the need to reexplore the implant pocket with resultant increased need for potential take back to the operating room or instrumentation of the pocket with risk of infection. In addition, because there is no contact of the implant with the skin, there may potentially be a decreased risk of contamination and subsequent capsular contracture, and therefore, the implants follow-up should be the same as other techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transabdominal Breast Augmentation With Silicone Gel Implants

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Breast augmentation is frequently performed together with abdominoplasty. Although breast augmentation incisions generally heal well, patients almost universally will appreciate having fewer scars; this is the basic rationale for transabdominal breast augmentation. In addition, a transabdominal approach may decrease the risk of implant contamination because there is no contact of the implants with skin. Methods A chart review of the senior author's private practice, from 2012 to 2020, was performed; 68 female patients who underwent abdominoplasty in association with transabdominal breast augmentation, with at least 1 year of follow-up, were included. All patients underwent liposuction, standard abdominoplasty with wide suprafascial abdominal flap undermining, and liposuction of the abdominal flap as needed. Round, silicone gel implants (Mentor Siltex, Santa Monica, CA) were used. Results A total of 68 patients were operated on. Mean age was 49 years (range, 25–68 years), mean body mass index was 25.7 kg/m2 (range, 22.3–29.5 kg/m2). The most commonly used implant volume (mode) was 270 mL (range, 225–395 mL). Implants were high (75%) or ultrahigh profile (25%). Eight patients (15%) had previously undergone breast augmentation. Seven patients (12%) underwent simultaneous breast fat grafting. There were no major complications. There were no complications related to the breast augmentation (ie, no extrusion or infection, malposition requiring revision, or capsular contracture). No patients requested upsizing or other revision of their implants. With regard to the abdominoplasty, there were 4 cases of well-circumscribed seroma treated with serial aspiration in the office. There were no cases of abdominoplasty site infection. Five patients required revision of abdominoplasty incisions. Two patients requested revision liposuction after weight gain. Conclusions Breast augmentation through an abdominoplasty incision may incur benefits beyond the obvious single surgical scar. Overall, transabdominal breast augmentation, in adequately selected patients, is an option which is safe, does not increase operative time, can lead to good results, and may potentially decrease some complications related to breast augmentation through other incision sites.

show abstract

Muscle-Splitting Transaxillary Revision Breast Augmentation—A Single Surgeon’s Experience

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mastopexy: A l3-year Analysis and Outcome of Primary and Secondary Procedures

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mastopexy: A l3-year Analysis and Outcome of Primary and Secondary Procedures

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

Transabdominal Breast Augmentation With Silicone Gel Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About