Quantitative Appraisal Through MRI of Breast Tissue Thickness and Implant Projection After Breast Augmentation with High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants

Abramo, Antonio Carlos; Lucena, Thiago Walmsley; Scartozzoni, Marcio

doi:10.1007/s00266-019-01533-z

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the particularity of breast shape, there is no uniform standard for projection measurement. Abramo et al 17 reported the use of magnetic resonance imaging to measure the linear anteroposterior dimension of breast tissue thickness and projection of the implants. They found that round implants did not cause significant thinning of the breast tissue, meanwhile the consistency of the gel made it strong enough to support breast tissue compressing without significant changes in the implant projection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Morphological Comparison Between Anatomic and Round Implant Augmentation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The choice of implant shape (anatomic or round) is one of the most critical issues for breast augmentation. Determining whether there are differences in the postoperative breast morphology of the 2 implants is pivotal for surgical planning. This issue has been controversial and lacking in evidence. The aim of this study was to provide reference for implant selection by comparing breast morphology after dual-plane augmentation with anatomic and round implants using 3-dimensional scanning technology. Methods Patients with implant volume less than 300 mL who underwent transaxillary dual-plane augmentation were included in this study and were grouped according to implant shape. Three-dimensional scans were performed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative breast height (BH), breast width (BW), BH of upper pole (BHUP), BH of lower pole (BHLP), breast projection (BP), BP of upper pole (BPUP), and BP of lower pole (BPLP) were measured separately, resulting in corresponding ratios (BH/BW, BHUP/BHLP, BP/BH, BPUP/BPLP). Breast volume, and the volumes of each pole (breast volume of upper pole [BVUP], breast volume of lower pole [BVLP]) and its ratio (BVUP/BVLP) were calculated. Correlation and regression analysis on the influencing factors of breast volume were performed. Results Thirty patients with anatomic implants and 26 with round implants were enrolled in this study. The mean volumes of anatomic and round implants were 260.5 ± 26.7 and 267.9 ± 21.7 mL (P = 0.192). The ratios of BH/BW in the 2 groups were 1.39 ± 0.12 and 1.37 ± 0.19, respectively (P = 0.582). The BHUP/BHLP values of 2 groups were 1.35 ± 0.22 and 1.41 ± 0.25 (P = 0.160). Two sets of BPUP/BPLP were 0.68 ± 0.19 and 0.73 ± 0.17 (P = 0.133). The ratios of BP/BH in the 2 groups were 0.39 ± 0.08 and 0.39 ± 0.06 (P = 0.830). The BVUP/BVLP ratios for both groups were 0.75 ± 0.11 and 0.77 ± 0.12 (P = 0.287). There was a volume loss rate of 13.3% ± 3.9% and 13.9% ± 5% (P = 0.489). The postoperative volume showed a positive correlation with both the preoperative volume and the implant volume. Conclusions For patients with breast dysplasia undergoing transaxillary dual-plane augmentation with anatomic or round implants less than 300 mL, the difference in postoperative breast morphology is not obvious. Using these 2 shapes of implants results in a similar degree of volume loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%