SMS—Split Muscle Support: A Reproducible Approach for Breast Implant Stabilization

M, Rigo; Piccinini, Pedro Salomão; Sartori, Lucas Dal Pozzo; Carvalho, Luís Antônio Rigo de; Uebel, Carlos Oscar

doi:10.1007/s00266-019-01565-5

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21,30–33 Later, modifications of the pocket design were reported by other authors for its use in internal mastopexy and to minimize lateral displacement in some cases. 23,31 MSBP also allows transaxillary approach, which has been used for primary and revision surgeries. 22,24…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21,[30][31][32][33] Later, modifications of the pocket design were reported by other authors for its use in internal mastopexy and to minimize lateral displacement in some cases. 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.…”

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 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…21 Furthermore, the very low complication rate is in line with previous studies assessing breast implants with this unique smooth surface. [22][23][24][25] Addressing unmet surgeons' expectations 26 while stepping away from the drawbacks of textured surfaces and the concerns about rotation seems to find common ground in this implant, the first commercially available smooth shaped device. The tab system and the fixation technique are essential components that ensure the proper positioning and aesthetic outcomes of other implantable breast devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Surgery with Smooth Anatomical Implants with Fixation System: A Review of the World’s Largest Series of Cases

Mayo¹

2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Anatomical implants continue to be a particularly useful tool in breast surgery, offering an excellent result for certain indications. However, to ensure fixation and prevent rotation, traditional alternatives have medium to high surface roughness and have been controversial in recent years. Methods: A retrospective assessment of 122 prosthetic augmentation and reconstruction patients over a period of 5 years was conducted. Patients were treated with tabbed anatomical implants with a smooth surface and followed up for a period of 12 months. Demographics, complications, and patient satisfaction were captured. A subgroup of 101 patients were assessed with chest radiographs at 1-year follow-up. Technical recommendations are discussed. Results: Primary breast augmentation, revision augmentation, augmentation-mastopexy, and breast reconstruction were the main indications for surgery. All implants were inserted through an inframammary incision and placed in the subpectoral space using dual-plane techniques, except in one mastectomy case. Rotation of the implants was radiographically observed in only two cases of revision augmentation. None of the 122 patients developed capsular contracture, seroma, rupture, infection, hematoma, or malposition following breast surgery. Conclusions: Smooth anatomical implants with a fixation system offer reliable and satisfactory results for patients with various diagnoses and indications. The tab system and the fixation technique are essential to provide long-term stability, which was verified by radiographs because of the radiopaque lines present in the device for that purpose. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

show abstract

“…The subsequent shift to the subpectoral plane offered an increased coverage of the implant and the effective prevention of some of these complications [ 14 ]. Newer operative techniques led to initially pleasing results [ 15 ]. However, subpectoral implant placement in turn is frequently associated with chronic muscle related pain, muscle spasms or contractions, animation deformity of the reconstructed breast, reduced physical mobility of the upper extremity, and eventually a reduction in physical strength of the patient ( Figure 2 ) [ 16 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy, from the Subpectoral to the Prepectoral Approach: An Evidence-Based Change of Mind?

Weinzierl

Schmauß

Brucato

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last years, prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has undergone a renaissance due to several technical advancements regarding mastectomy techniques and surgical approaches for the placement and soft tissue coverage of silicone implants. Initially abandoned due to the high incidence of complications, such as capsular contraction, implant extrusion, and poor aesthetic outcome, the effective prevention of these types of complications led to the prepectoral technique coming back in style for the ease of implant placement and the conservation of the pectoralis muscle function. Additional advantages such as a decrease of postoperative pain, animation deformity, and operative time contribute to the steady gain in popularity. This review aims to summarize the factors influencing the trend towards prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction and to discuss the challenges and prospects related to this operative approach.

show abstract

SMS—Split Muscle Support: A Reproducible Approach for Breast Implant Stabilization

Cited by 15 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Breast Surgery with Smooth Anatomical Implants with Fixation System: A Review of the World’s Largest Series of Cases

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy, from the Subpectoral to the Prepectoral Approach: An Evidence-Based Change of Mind?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About