Systematic review of outcomes and complications in nonimplant-based mastopexy surgery

Summa, Pietro G. di; Oranges, Carlo M.; Watfa, William; Sapino, Gianluca; Keller, Nicola; Tay, Sherylin K.; Chew, Ben K.; Schaefer, Dirk J.; Raffoul, Wassim

doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2018.10.018

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, these findings are particularly important for their applications in the continuously evolving research in the field of breast and body contouring surgeries for both reconstructive and aesthetic purposes (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional Assessment of the Breast: Validation of a Novel, Simple and Inexpensive Scanning Process

Oranges

Madduri

Brantner

et al. 2019

In Vivo

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim: Methods to assess threedimensionally the breast surface are increasingly used in plastic and reconstructive surgery. The aim of this study was to validate the use of the Structure Sensor 3D scanner (Occipital, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA) connected to an iPad Pro (Apple, Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) as a novel, inexpensive and handheld three-dimensional scanning process. Materials and Methods: Surface images of a medical human female anatomy torso model of rigid plastic were repeatedly acquired with Structure Sensor 3D scanner and compared with those obtained using two clinically established 3D imaging systems. Digital measurements of vector and surface breast distances were analyzed using Mimics ® Innovation Suite 20 medical imaging software (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). Results: The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no statistically significant difference among measurements obtained using different scanning processes for all the variables examined (p>0.05). Conclusion: The study demonstrates analogous practicability and reliability for surface image acquisition using the newly introduced Structure Sensor 3D scanner and other clinically established scanners. Three-dimensional photographic imaging technologies are gaining an increasing role in plastic and reconstructive surgery. They allow accurate and efficient pre-operative analysis to formulate diagnosis and establish endpoint goals of treatment to address the underlying morphology and, thus, prepare an appropriate surgical plan (1). Furthermore, in contrast to traditional two-dimensional photography, three-dimensional imaging is growingly regarded as a fundamental tool to objectively measure outcomes by providing true surface anatomy (2). Notably, volumetric and geometric parameters analyses such as depth and surface topographic distance measurements can also be performed, yielding important additional data (2). These elements are considered particularly relevant in case of breast surgery, where they can be used to evaluate symmetry, surface and volumetric changes, including total breast volumes, volumetric distribution, and breast projection. Moreover, surface and vector measurements can be assessed to define breast contour, size, and position on the chest wall (3). A number of researches have indeed validated the use of three-dimensional imaging in the clinical context of autologous or prosthetic breast reconstruction, and breast augmentation and reduction (3-10). Several validated devices are available for three-dimensional breast images capturing. However, many of them are not portable, heavyweight and generally expensive (11). These characteristics make them of unpractical use in the daily practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional Assessment of the Breast: Validation of a Novel, Simple and Inexpensive Scanning Process

Oranges

Madduri

Brantner

et al. 2019

In Vivo

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main goal of mastopexy is to relocate the nipple to a more centralized place on the breast mound, improve breast projection, and produce upper pole fullness. Many operative techniques, such as simple dermal reshaping, glandular redistribution, suspension to the pectoralis fascia, insertion of synthetic mesh for support, and the use of the adjacent perforator flaps, have been described [7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is the main difference between mastopexy and breast reduction. Many surgical procedures such as periareolar mastopexy, vertical mastopexy, and Wise pattern procedures have been designated, but the most recent types of mastopexy include the manipulation of parenchyma to improve the longevity of breast ptosis correction [7]. Single stage augmentation mastopexy has been shown to be a reliable option for carefully selected patients who wish to correct both the shape and volume of the breast [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower Pole Dermoglandular Flap Autoaugmentation versus Mastopexy Augmentation with Subpectoral Implants: Outcomes after Reshaping of Ptotic Breasts

Elmekkawy¹,

Abdelbaki²,

El-Din³

et al. 2021

The Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Single stage augmentation mastopexy is a challenging procedure for both volume expansion and skin envelope reduction. Also, the patient experience is an important issue after mastopexy as it affects the patient physical functioning, psychosocial wellbeing, and the aesthetic result.Aim: To assess the outcomes of reshaping of a ptotic breast and its impact on the quality of life.Patients and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted over a 2-year period in 32 female patients with different degrees of breast ptosis. Patients were divided into two groups according to their desire to increase breast volume either using or not using an implant. Standard breast measurements as well as early and late complications were recorded, and patient satisfaction was assessed using the BREAST-Q.Results: Postoperatively, both the groups showed significant improvements in ptosis and in the BREAST-Q scores compared to pre-operative scores in all domains (p≤0.001). However, regarding post-operative satisfaction with breast volume, psychosocial wellbeing, and outcomes, the autoaugmentation group showed a significantly higher BREAST-Q score compared with the implant augmentation group (p≤0.05). Conclusion:The BREAST-Q provides significant clinical information and evaluates the influence of the surgical procedure on the patient's regular life activities. Mastopexy autoaugmentation using the lower pole dermoglandular flap is a reliable technique for enhancing the projection of the breast, improving the upper pole shape, and creating an adequate breast volume with a low complication rate and high patient satisfaction.

show abstract

“…Treatment consists generally in mastopexy and/or breast augmentation with implant fitting. The mastopexy procedure is generally considered a reliable aesthetic procedure with less than 2% of unsatisfactory breast shape [2]. In addition to operative risks related to any surgery performed under anesthesia, some complications specific to breast plasty and breast implant may occur such as hematoma, infection, wound healing delay, wound dehiscence, necrosis of the areola, necrosis of the skin, disruption of the implant and silicon leakage, rare case of anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and poor quality of the scars, including hypertrophic scar or keloid [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to operative risks related to any surgery performed under anesthesia, some complications specific to breast plasty and breast implant may occur such as hematoma, infection, wound healing delay, wound dehiscence, necrosis of the areola, necrosis of the skin, disruption of the implant and silicon leakage, rare case of anaplastic large cell lymphoma, and poor quality of the scars, including hypertrophic scar or keloid [1]. The overall complication rate of mastopexy reaches 10% and the most represented complications are scar related, with 3% of hypertrophic or unaesthetic appearance [2]. The patients' perspective is also essential when evaluating scar cosmetic appearance as it might differ from the ones of the surgeon [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Case Reports: Scar Prevention by Laser Treatment in Mastopexy With Implant

Hunsinger

Lhuaire

Dagher

et al. 2020

Textbook on Scar Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, Vincent Hunsinger, MD, former chief of clinic in the department of Professor Lantieri at Georges Pompidou European Hospital in Paris and in post-bariatric silhouette surgery after massive weight loss under the direction of Professor Ibrahim Dagher (Hospital Antoine Beclère, Clamart, France) presents a technique of improvement of postoperative scars by the use of an automated 1210 nm diode laser system (UrgoTouch®). The interest of this technique is to limit/prevent postoperative hypertrophy and scar enlargement.

show abstract

Systematic review of outcomes and complications in nonimplant-based mastopexy surgery

Cited by 28 publications

References 48 publications

Three-dimensional Assessment of the Breast: Validation of a Novel, Simple and Inexpensive Scanning Process

Three-dimensional Assessment of the Breast: Validation of a Novel, Simple and Inexpensive Scanning Process

Lower Pole Dermoglandular Flap Autoaugmentation versus Mastopexy Augmentation with Subpectoral Implants: Outcomes after Reshaping of Ptotic Breasts

Clinical Case Reports: Scar Prevention by Laser Treatment in Mastopexy With Implant

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About