RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Medical and technical advances have changed the state of postoperative surgical patient care, allowing for better and faster recovery. Since its publication, predictable 24-hour recovery in breast augmentation surgery has been controversial and has generated discussion. In this study, we present a novel, easy, and reproducible protocol for Enhanced Recovery After Breast Augmentation Surgery (ERABAS), along with a summary of the ten points to follow. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all primary breast augmentation surgeries performed between 2010 and 2020 by a private activity. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon according to the same protocol, and all implants were obtained from the same company. Data were evaluated using two binary logistic regression models, taking as variables responses to recovery time and postoperative pain and as predictor or explanatory variables to the factors age, smoking, size, and location of the implant. RESULTS: In total, 2906 patients were included in this study. Of these, 2770 patients (95%) immediately returned to normal life within the first 24 h, 129 achieved normal life in four days, and only seven needed a week to recover. In these seven patients, the main acute complications were hemorrhage and acute hematoma. The implants were always round; textured implants were used in 88.8% of patients, while smooth implants were used in 11.2%. A subfascial pocket was used in 934 patients, and a dual-plane pocket was performed for 1972 patients. The only factor that showed a significant effect on recovery time was the location of the implant (p < 0.05), with the dual-plane pocket being the intervention associated with a later recovery, specifically a probability of recovery after 24 hour, 2.86 times greater than subfascial. CONCLUSIONS: The ERABAS protocol allowed rapid return to daily activities with low complication rates. Further prospective comparative multicenter studies are required to confirm these results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the long-term satisfaction levels of women who have undergone breast augmentation and augmentation mastopexy procedures, while identifying the factors influencing patient satisfaction. METHODS: A self-reported retrospective case study design was used to collect data from women with breast implants. The study employed a survey that included demographic information, preoperative diagnosis, implant details, and patient-reported outcomes measured using the Breast-Q Instrument, which evaluates satisfaction with breasts, self-esteem, sexual well-being, and physical symptoms. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify correlations and differences in outcomes between the different variables. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1022 women from 19 countries, with Chile, Mexico, and Colombia being the most represented. Augmentation was performed on 72.2% of the patients, while 27.7% underwent augmentation mastopexy. Patient satisfaction with breast size and shape varied significantly between the two procedures, with patients undergoing augmentation mastopexy showing less satisfaction. In addition, patients who were unaware of their implant shape or placement reported lower satisfaction scores. The study also found that patient satisfaction decreased over time in the augmentation mastopexy cases and that patients with high body mass index had lower satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Augmentation mastopexy in patients with breast ptosis yields lower satisfaction than augmentation alone. Dissatisfaction escalates with overweight/obesity (BMI), post-surgery time, and misinformation. Implant pocket (pre-vs. subpectoral), shape (round vs. anatomical), and size did not impact satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Implant-based breast augmentations and reconstructions are one of the most common surgical procedures performed by plastic surgeons in the United States, which has rapidly increased in popularity since the 2000s. Silicone lymphadenopathy (SL) is a complication of breast implants that involves migration of silicone to nearby soft tissue/lymph nodes. Data on its clinical features and management is scarce. METHODS: SL-related search terms were used to find articles in 3 databases. Of 598 articles, 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Demographics, clinical presentation, workup, and management data were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 279 cases of SL and 107 with information on initial diagnosis, 35 (33%) were incidental. The most common symptom was painless lymphadenopathy, followed by painful lymphadenopathy. 251 (95%) and 13 (5%) patients had silicone and saline implants, respectively. 149 (68%) patients had implant rupture. Axillary lymphadenopathy was the most affected region (136 cases, 72%), followed by internal mammary (40 cases, 21%), cervical/supraclavicular (36 cases, 19%), and mediastinal (24 cases, 13%) regions. 25% of patients underwent fine-needle aspiration, 12% core needle biopsy, and 59% excisional biopsy. 32% of cases underwent explantation and/or implant exchange. The most common indication for surgery was implant rupture. Histology showed multinucleated giant cells, large histiocytes, and silicone accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: SL is a complication associated with breast implants. The majority of patients are asymptomatic, and most cases are managed conservatively. Minority need a biopsy and surgical interventions due to abnormal imaging, persistent symptoms, and/or implant rupture. Workup and management should be tailored to the patient.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Background: Although breast implant techniques have advanced considerably since the first recorded augmentation procedure in 1895, rupture remains a significant complication. Proper diagnosis is vital for patients' well-being but can sometimes prove challenging when there is no documentation of the initial procedure. Methods: This report describes a 58-year-old woman with a 30-year history of subglandular periareolar breast augmentation who was referred for bilateral implant rupture identified on computed tomography performed to monitor a breast nodule. Results: Despite classic imaging findings suggesting bilateral intracapsular implant rupture, breast implant revision surgery revealed a dense capsule containing 6 small silicone implants with no ruptures. Conclusions: This is a unique case where radiographic imaging was misleading due to an undocumented unusual breast augmentation procedure that used multiple small "gnocchi-like" silicone implants. To our knowledge, this technique has never been described until now and should be noted by the surgical and radiological community.

RESUMO

Resumen Antecedentes: La cirugía de aumento mamario con lipoinjerto se ha incrementado debido a que evita usar prótesis. Es utilizado para aumentos moderados con fines estéticos, no retarda el diagnóstico de cáncer ni aumenta el riesgo de sufrirlo. Objetivo: Revisar nuestra experiencia en aumento mamario estético con lipoinjerto, en una sesión y con seguimiento superior a un año. Materiales y Método: Se diseñó una cohorte prospectiva de mujeres. Se excluyeron aquellas con alteraciones congénitas, mesenquimopatías y fumadoras. La lipoinyección se efectuó con principios de Coleman. Para la medición del volumen mamario preoperatorio se utilizó la aplicación Breast-V. Volumen de aumento, tasa de retención y tasa de aumento fueron calculados. Resultados: 73 pacientes fueron lipoinjertadas, 35 superaron seguimiento a un año. Volumen mamario inicial fue 219,5 ± 44,1 cc. Volumen de aumento fue 99,9 ± 29,8 cc, tasa de retención grasa injertada 41,4%, tasa de aumento del volumen mamario 48,1%. 41 pacientes presentaron imágenes posoperatorias: quistes 15 pacientes (36,6%); necrosis grasa 2 pacientes (4,9%); macrocalcificaciones 8 pacientes (19,5%); microcalcificaciones 1 paciente (2,5%), cuya biopsia fue negativa para malignidad. Discusión: El lipoinjerto mamario es un procedimiento seguro, con resultados adecuados cuando se realiza en una sesión y por el mismo cirujano, siguiendo principios de Coleman. El aumento porcentual es el índice más significativo para evaluar su éxito. Conclusiones: Lipoinyección mamaria en una sesión es una técnica segura que logra aumento moderado del volumen mamario. Es útil para aumentos moderados o corrección de asimetrías leves. No hay evidencia de que interfiera con el diagnóstico precoz del cáncer de mama.

Background: Lipograft breast augmentation has increased due to avoidance of prosthetics. It is used for moderate increases for aesthetic purposes, it does not delay the diagnosis of cancer or increase the risk of suffering it. Aim: To review our experience in cosmetic breast augmentation with lipograft, in one session and with a follow-up of more than one year. Materials and Method: A prospective cohort of women was designed. Those with congenital alterations, mesenchymopathies and smokers were excluded. Lipoinjection was carried out with Coleman's principies. The Breast-V application was used to measure preoperative breast volume. Volume of increase, retention rate and rate of increase were calculated. Results: 73 patients were lipografted, 35 had a one-year follow-up. Initial breast volume was 219.5 ± 44.1 cc. Volume increase was 99.9 ± 29.8 cc, grafted fat retention rate 41.4%, breast volume increase rate 48.1%. 41 patients presented postoperative images: cysts 15 patients (36.6%); fat necrosis 2 patients (4.9%); macrocalcifiations 8 patients (19.5%); microcalcifiations 1 patient (2.5%), whose biopsy was negative for malignancy. Discussion: The mammary lipograft is a safe procedure, with adequate results when performed in one session and by the same surgeon, following Coleman principles. The percentage increase is the most significant index to evalúate your success. Conclusions: Breast lipoinjection in one session is a safe technique that achieves a moderate increase in breast volume. It is useful for moderate magnification or correction of slight asymmetries. There is no evidence that it interferes with the early diagnosis of breast cancer.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pectoral nNerve (PECS) block type-1 is an Ultrasound (US)-guided interfacial block that can be performed for postoperative analgesia management after breast surgery. In the procedure, a local anesthetic solution is injected into the interfacial area between the Pectoralis Major muscles (PMm) and Pectoralis minor muscles (Pmm). The present study compared PECS block type-1 administered preoperatively or postoperatively for postoperative analgesia after breast augmentation surgery. METHODS: The patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 30 in each): a preoperative PECS block group (Pregroup), postoperative PECS block group (Postgroup), and control group (Group C). Opioid consumption and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were evaluated at postoperative period. RESULTS: The pains scores in the Pregroup were significantly lower than those in the control group. Although there was no significantly difference in the VAS scores of the Postgroup and control group at postoperative 1 hour, the scores in the Postgroup were significantly lower than those in the control group at all the other evaluated times (p < 0.05). The VAS scores in the Pregroup were significantly lower than those in the Postgroup 8 hours after the surgery. Opioid consumption was significantly lower in the Pregroup as compared with that in the other two groups (p < 0.05). The use of rescue analgesia in the Pregroup was significantly lower than that in the other groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Performing PECS block type-1 preoperatively reduced VAS scores and opioid consumption after breast augmentation.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Well discussed in a previous article published by the senior author, primary transaxillary breast augmentation drawbacks include the need to correct complications arising from reuse of the axillary incision which the literature is sparse on. We here discuss a technique in patients who underwent a secondary transaxillary breast augmentation procedure. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to present a technique for transaxillary revision breast augmentation with conversion to a muscle-splitting plane which has the advantage of good upper and medial pole coverage and adequate lower pole expansion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 41 women with previous silicone gel implants placed through a transaxillary incision who presented with rippling or a desire for larger implants (January 2016-July 2020). Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older and having undergone breast augmentation surgery. Exclusion criteria were active smoking and body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2. At one year postoperatively patients were asked a "yes or no" question regarding satisfaction with the overall result and with the scar quality. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were included in this study; no patients were excluded. The patients' age ranged from 32 to 47 years, the average being 38 years old. All participants were female. Mean BMI was 21.9 kg/m2 and all patients had a pinch test <2cm. Indications for surgery included rippling (all patients) and a desire for larger implant size (n = 5). Size of new implants ranged from 325cc to 430cc; all were of a larger size than those used in the primary surgery. Operative time was on average 53 min. [4483 min.]. Mean follow-up was 13 months, ranging from 12 to 15 months. There was no additional cost related to operative time. Regarding patient satisfaction, 100% replied they were pleased with the overall results and scar quality. There were no major complications. CONCLUSION: The transaxillary approach for muscle splitting breast augmentation revision surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique. Despite having a mean follow-up of only 13 months, we demonstrate a low rate of complication as well as high degree of patient satisfaction with no extra cost when compared to other techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Breast implants follow-up with any type of examination is often neglected; this may cause an error or delay in the diagnosis of complications prosthesis-related such as BIA-ALCL. This study aims to better understand adequate follow-up criteria. METHOD: All female patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation and breast MRI in its follow-up conducted from April 2006 to December 2019 were included in this study. The variables analyzed were age, breast implant surgery date, time with the implant, reason for the examination, and the final examination report. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for the predictors of positive findings in MRI. A Cox Regression analysis and cumulative risk curves, controlled by age, was performed to investigate the relationship between time with implants and the risk of positive findings in MRI. RESULTS: The patients submitted to MRI had complaints in 29.6% of cases, with pain being the most common, 13.9% of cases. In logistic regression analysis, time with the implant was associated with a higher risk of positive findings in univariate analysis (OR = 1.07, p = 0.036), but not in multivariate analysis. Both pain and breast form changes were independent predictors for positive findings in MRI, OR = 2.79, p = 0.04, and OR = 16.98, p < 0.001, respectively. The cumulative risk of positive findings in MRI increased considerably only after 10 years of implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Time with breast implants may be associated with a higher risk of changes in breast MRI examinations, although this relationship was not significant in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The cumulative risk for positive findings seems to increase considerably only after 10 years of implantation. This study draws attention to the paramount importance of follow-up with a clinical breast examination. Despite time with implants or patients' age, both pain and breast form changes were the most important predictors for MRI alterations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Breast prostheses could be associated with complications, despite many studies on surgical materials and techniques. The role of surgical drainage in preventing complications on breast prostheses surgery is controversial. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the role and effectiveness of vacuum drainage in the augmentation mammoplasty. METHODS: A prospective multicentric randomized comparative clinical trial was conducted with 150 patients, who were the candidates for breast augmentation. The candidates were split into two groups to analyze the breast drain role. Group1: closed-suction drainage; measurements were taken every 24 h for 48 h. Group2: control (no drainage); all the patients were submitted to a clinical and postoperative ultrasonography evaluation (7th day and 3rd month). The late consultations (1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-year postoperative time) were carried out to identify any complication, such as infection, seroma, hematoma, asymmetry, hypertrophic scarring, rippling, implant position, visible edges, and sensibility alteration. RESULTS: A total of 150 female patients were operated with 300 breast implants placed into subglandular pocket. In the first 24 h postoperative (D1), the drainage volume ranged from 12 ml to 210 ml (mean= 74.90 ml; SD= 43.29 ml). After 24 h, on the second day (D2), the collected volume ranged from 10 ml to 120 ml (mean= 44.76 ml; SD= 24.80 ml). The total drainage volume in the 48 h ranged from 22 ml to 320 ml (mean= 119.7 ml; SD= 62.20 ml). The breast ultrasonography series (BUSGS) analysis was done on the 7th day and 3rd month in both groups. There was no significant difference between G1 and G2 groups (p = 0.05 and 0.25, respectively). In the follow-up, some patients (33-44%) declared sensitivity disturbing on the nipple-areola complex (NAC) and lower breast segment. CONCLUSIONS: The closed-suction breast drainage in breast augmentation was associated with high cost and time-consuming and not demonstrated any benefit in a recent postoperative time.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg-1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0-10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha<0.05). RESULTS: In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23-5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13-4.37), 3.79 (2.93-4.64), and 2.29 (1.56-3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32-5.60), 4.00 (3.50-4.49), 3.93 (3.12-4.73), and 2.29 (1.56-3.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Abstract Background and objectives: PECS I block was first described for surgery involving the pectoralis muscles. No randomized clinical trial has been conducted on surgeries that directly involve these muscles, such as subpectoral breast augmentation. We hypothesized that PECS I block would decrease pain in the postoperative period in this population. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women undergoing subpectoral breast augmentation surgery. PECS I block was performed using 0.4 mL.kg-1 of 0.9% saline on one side and bupivacaine (0.25%) on the other side, each patient being her own control. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores (0 - 10) were measured at rest and during movement. The primary outcome was pain score at rest 30 minutes after arrival in the PACU. To detect a clinically significant difference of 50% in pain reduction, 14 volunteers were enrolled (power of 90% and alpha < 0.05). Results: In the PACU, three patients had no difference in pain between sides, five had reduced pain on the placebo side, and six had reduced pain on the bupivacaine side. In the bupivacaine group, pain scores at rest at 5, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours were 4.89 (4.23 - 5.56; mean 95% CI), 3.75 (3.13 - 4.37), 3.79 (2.93 - 4.64), and 2.29 (1.56 - 3.01), respectively, whereas in the placebo group, they were 4.96 (4.32 - 5.60), 4.00 (3.50 - 4.49), 3.93 (3.12 - 4.73), and 2.29 (1.56 - 3.01), respectively. Conclusions: PECS I block in patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery does not provide better pain relief than placebo. Therefore, the indications for PECS I block in breast augmentation surgery should be reconsidered.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos: O bloqueio PECS I foi descrito pela primeira vez para cirurgia envolvendo os músculos peitorais. Nenhum estudo clínico randomizado foi realizado em procedimentos envolvendo diretamente os músculos peitorais, como a mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Nossa hipótese foi de que o bloqueio PECS I diminuiria a dor pós-operatória nessa população. Método: Realizamos estudo randomizado, duplo-cego, controlado por placebo em mulheres submetidas à mamoplastia de aumento submuscular. Realizamos o bloqueio PECS I com 0,4 mL.kg-1 de solução salina a 0,9% de um lado e bupivacaína (0,25%) do outro lado, sendo cada paciente seu próprio controle. Os escores da Escala de Avaliação Numérica (EAN) de dor (0 - 10) foram obtidos em repouso e durante movimento. O desfecho primário foi o escore de dor em repouso 30 minutos após a chegada à SRPA. Para detectar uma diferença clinicamente significante de 50% na redução da dor, 14 voluntárias foram incluídas (poder de 90% e alfa < 0,05). Resultados: Na SRPA, três pacientes não apresentaram diferença na dor entre os lados, cinco relataram menos dor no lado do placebo e seis, menos dor no lado da bupivacaína. No grupo bupivacaína, os escores de dor em repouso aos 5, 30 e 60 minutos e 24 horas foram 4,89 (4,23 - 5,56; IC médio 95%), 3,75 (3,13 - 4,37), 3,79 (2,93 - 4,64) e 2,29 (1,56 - 3,01), respectivamente, enquanto no grupo placebo foram 4,96 (4,32 - 5,60), 4,00 (3,50 - 4,49), 3,93 (3,12 - 4,73) e 2,29 (1,56 - 3,01), respectivamente. Conclusões: O bloqueio PECS I em pacientes submetidas a mamoplastia de aumento não oferece melhor alívio da dor do que o placebo. Portanto, as indicações para bloqueio de PECS I na cirurgia de aumento de mama devem ser reconsideradas.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the importance of anthropometric measurements of the breasts, based on linear measurements for the selection of the volume of breast implants, their positioning, and surgical planning. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to evaluate the main changes in anthropometric measurements in breast augmentation. METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical study with 74 female candidates for breast augmentation. All the individuals were split into five groups, according to the implant volume. The implants used were of different textures, from three different brands (LifeSil, Politech, and Silimed). The following measures were taken: distance from the nipple to the inframammary fold (N-IMF), inter-nipple-areolar complex distance (N-N), distance from the Sternal notch to the Nipple (SN-N), areola diameter, and breast projection. RESULTS: The most significant breast anthropometric alteration after mammoplasty was the N-IMF distance; that is, an expansion of the lower pole of the breast, followed by an increase in the areolar diameter. Mostly of measurements showed stability between 3rd and 6th months after the surgery. The projection was the most interesting measure due to presenting two patterns of behavior according to the analysis criteria performed. When comparing the implant projection and the final breast projection, it was observed that the implant profile represented a 27% increase in the final breast projection. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an essential comparative analysis between anthropometric changes in breast augmentations and serves as a predictive tool in the preoperative evaluation of the patient during surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Subfascial breast augmentation is gaining popularity because of no distortion when the pectoral muscle is contracted and minimizing visualization of the edges of the implant. Although some studies have reported a satisfactory outcome with subfascial technique, it still is controversial the influence of the pectoral fascia and outcome compared to the subglandular technique. Therefore, this prospective randomized study aimed to investigate whether there are clinical/radiological differences between subfascial and subglandular pockets following primary breast augmentation. METHODS: Twenty patient candidates for primary breast augmentation were recruited. Each patient was selected for subfascial or subglandular pockets in a randomized fashion. Both patient and surgeon were blinded. Clinical and radiological differences were evaluated through five independent surgeons and MRI (capsule, folds, fluids, base and projection). Median follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: Breast consistency (p = 0.24), implant pocket (p = 0.52), symmetry (p = 1), contour, and shape (p = 0.09) demonstrated no statistically significant difference after the surgeons' assessments at 3 and 12 months after surgery. MRIs demonstrated a larger implant base in the subfascial group (p = 0.024). No differences were observed in capsule thickness (p = 0.42), folds (p = 0.51), fluids (p = 0.28), or projection (0.20). CONCLUSION: The choice between subfascial and subglandular planes shows no clinical differences and can be selected according to individual professional experience, not evidencing any advantages of one over the other. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Chest wall shape is an important aspect to consider when planning a breast augmentation. Minor chest wall deformities are usually underestimated by the patient and surgeon and may compromise postoperative outcomes. Lower costal cartilage dysmorphia or winged rib is one of these minor underestimated chest wall deformities characterized by a visible and palpable cartilaginous prominence under the inframammary fold and causes discomfort in patients decreasing the satisfaction with the breast augmentation surgery. For these patients, the author utilized an innovative surgical technique that allows resection of the protruding cartilages and placement of breast implants through the same surgical incision. Six patients with winged ribs underwent breast augmentation and costal cartilage resection via this method and there were no intraoperative or early postoperative complications, and all patients were satisfied with the aesthetical result after 6 months of follow-up. The presented surgical technique has a short learning curve with excellent postoperative results. Cases are presented to demonstrate the improved postoperative chest wall contour combined with breast augmentation outcome.Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Rippling and implant edge visibility after breast augmentation depends on several factors. Among the most relevant are breast soft tissue thickness, particularly the retroareolar mammary parenchyma, and implant profile. They were correlates to prevent these occurrences. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent breast augmentation through subfascial dissection involving the pectoralis, serratus, external oblique, and rectus abdominis fascias. The thickness of the retroareolar mammary parenchyma distributed patients into two groups. Group I: patients with thickness equal to or greater than 4.0 cm received high-profile 85% fill round implants. Group II: patients with thickness up to 3.9 cm received extra-high-profile 100% fill round implants. MRI was performed preoperatively and 5 years after augmentation to evaluate breast tissue changes and implant contouring. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with high-profile implants and thirteen patients with extra-high-profile implants had noticeable improvement of the breasts without the occurrence of rippling or implant edge visibility. A natural appearance of the breast, increased mammary cone, balanced upper and lower pole contouring was maintained at 5 years postoperatively. MRI performed 5 years after breast augmentation validated patient clinical outcomes not evidencing implant deformities, or soft tissue thinning, parenchymal atrophy or chest wall deformities. CONCLUSIONS: The adequate correlation between retroareolar mammary parenchyma thickness with high-profile 85% fill and extra-high-profile 100% fill textured round implants was of utmost importance in preventing rippling and implant edge visibility. The wide fascial support, width of the implant smaller than the breast diameter, and soft cohesive gel-filled implants were co-adjuvant factors in preventing rippling and implant edge visibility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy is a particularly tricky operation with a considerable reoperation rate. The pectoralis muscle sling has proven to be a suitable alternative technique for long-term results in breast parenchyma suspension without silicone implants. This study aims to propose a promising approach to simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy revisional surgery using an inverted dual-plane technique acting as a muscular sling. METHODS: A 10-year historic cohort was conducted to obtain the following variables from our preexisting database: age, preoperative measurements, operative technicalities, implant details, time from procedure to revision, complications, and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients assessed after the initial postoperative year were analyzed. Review of this series of patients revealed a revision rate of 3.8% and overall rate of morbidity of 11.5%. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy using an inverted dual-plane technique acting as a muscular sling is a reliable and safe procedure. Review of this series of patients revealed low rates of morbidity and reoperation need. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Dynamic breast deformity (DBD) is characterized by visible distortion and deformity of the breast due to contraction of the pectoralis major muscle after submuscular breast augmentation; fortunately, in most cases, this is not a clinically significant complaint from patients. The purpose of this study is to present a simple method for objectively measuring DBD in patients submitted to dual plane breast augmentation (DPBA). METHODS: We studied 32 women, between 18 and 50 years old, who underwent primary DPBA with at least 1 year of follow-up. Anthropometric landmarks of the breast were marked, creating linear segments. Standardized photographs were obtained both during no pectoralis contraction (NPC) and during maximum pectoralis muscle contraction (MPC); measurements of the linear segments were taken through ImageJ imaging software, and both groups were compared. RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences in all analyzed segments when comparing measurements of the breasts during NPC and MPC (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study proposes a novel, standardized method for measuring DBD after DPBA. This technique is reproducible, allowing for objective quantification of the deformity in any patient, which can be valuable for both patients and surgeons, as it allows for a more thorough discussion on DBD, both pre- and postoperatively, and may help both patients and surgeons to make more informed decisions regarding potential animation deformities after breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

The surgical approach to breast asymmetry depends on several factors, including the surgeon's experience, the anatomy of the patient, and several methods that may help to choose a technique and define the size of the implant or the amount of breast tissue to be excised. The aim of this study is to assist in evaluation of breast volumes with the Quantra™ software application, intended for use with Hologic™ digital mammography systems. Twenty-eight women were studied with full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with the Quantra™ software application, for use with Hologic™ digital mammography systems preoperatively. The case diagnoses were as follows: breast hypertrophy, ptosis, hypoplasia, and reconstruction, and the surgeries included breast reduction, mastopexy, mastopexy and breast reduction, mastoplasty and breast augmentation, breast augmentation, and immediate or delayed breast reconstruction. Patients were evaluated from 6 to 18 months after surgery. Volumetric mammogram studies help to decide the amount of tissue to be excised, the size of the implants, and the combination of both. The results of this study were evaluated by surgeons and patients and found to be highly satisfactory. The use of full-field digital mammography with adequate software should be considered as another tool to assist in making decisions regarding the correction of breast asymmetries. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assuntos

RESUMO

This paper presents patients satisfaction using anatomical polyurethane breast implants. We performed surgery on 525 patients, 370 of which were primary and 155 were secondary to various causes such as capsular contracture, ruptured implants, volume changes, and incorrect positioning of the implant. The advantages of silicone polyurethane covers shown high level of patient satisfaction, low incidence of capsular contracture, and absence of implant rotation, and late seroma.

RESUMO

Introducción: El instrumento Breast-Q® se ha ocupado para medir la calidad de vida de las pacientes sometidas a cirugía de aumento mamario. Se desconocen los factores que determinan la mejoría en la calidad de vida de estas pacientes. El objetivo de este trabajo es identificar los factores determinantes de la mejoría de la calidad de vida en pacientes sometidas a aumento mamario. Materiales y métodos: Se estudió una cohorte prospectiva de 52 pacientes sometidas a aumento mamario. Se estudiaron características sociodemográficas, mediciones antropométricas, variables relativas a la cirugía y se aplicó el instrumento Breast-Q®. Para el análisis estadístico se utilizó estadística descriptiva, el test de Wilcoxon para muestras pareadas y modelos de regresión lineal y logística. Resultados: Se encontró mejoría en la calidad de vida de forma global (p < 0,00001) y en todos los dominios salvo en el de «síntomas físicos¼. Dentro de los factores determinantes, existió una relación positiva entre el volumen de la prótesis y la mejoría en la calidad de vida de forma global (p = 0,032) y en los dominios «autoimagen y autoestima¼ (p = 0,01) y «vida sexual¼ (p = 0,001). Conclusión: La cirugía de aumento mamario incrementa significativamente la calidad de vida medido mediante el instrumento Breast-Q®. Los determinantes de la mejoría en la calidad de vida estarían directamente relacionados con el volumen de la prótesis.

Introduction: Breast-Q® instrument has been used for measuring the quality of life of patients undergoing breast augmentation surgery. The factors that determine the improvement in the quality of life of these patients are unknown. The aim of this work is to identify the determinant factors of improvement in the quality of life in patients undergoing breast augmentation. Materials and methods: A prospective cohort of 52 patients undergoing breast augmentation was studied. Sociodemographic features, anthropometric measurements, variables related to surgery were studied and the Breast-Q® instrument was applied. For statistical analysis it was used descriptive statistics and linear and logistic regression models. Results: We found improvement in the quality of life, globally (P < .00001) and in all domains except "physical symptoms’ domain. Among the determining factors, there was a positive correlation between the prosthesis volume and improvement in quality of life globally (P = .032) and in the domains "self-image and self-esteem" (P = .01) and "sexual life" (P = .001). Conclusion: Breast augmentation surgery significantly increases the quality of life measured by the Breast-Q® instrument. The determinant factors of improvement in quality of life, would be directly related to the implants volume.

Assuntos