The Process of Breast Augmentation with Special Focus on Patient Education, Patient Selection and Implant Selection

Endoscopic Primary Breast Augmentation With Loco-Regional Anesthesia: Preliminary Experience of 200 Consecutive Patients

Background

Breast augmentation with implants recorded over 1.6 billion procedures globally in 2022. To reduce surgical trauma and complications and facilitate a fast recovery, we employ an ultrasound-guided local-regional anesthesia technique, the creation of a partial submuscular implant pocket by direct endoscopic visualization and minimal skin access on the mammary fold.

Objectives

The aim in this study is to evaluate whether breast augmentation performed in endoscopy under local-regional anesthesia reduces postoperative recovery time, reduces complications, and increases patient satisfaction.

Methods

Patients provided their consent through a signed form. We set strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We prospectively evaluated postoperative pain and recovery times, the rate of complications, and patient satisfaction at 12 months postsurgery.

Results

Between January 2021 and September 2022, 200 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average operation time was 54.2 min. Patients were discharged from the hospital within 2 to 3 h. Eighty-nine percent of patients expressed great satisfaction with the result. None of the patients experienced postsurgical complications.

Conclusions

In our initial study, we showed that endoscopic breast augmentation conducted under localized anesthesia is safe. It allows for quick recovery postsurgery and swift resumption of everyday activities. The overall complication risk is less than what has been reported in scientific studies for the classic dual-plane technique. Moreover, this approach yields excellent patient satisfaction. Additional prospective and randomized studies will be required to enhance the scientific validity of this technique. Moreover, a larger patient cohort will be essential to stratify the risks associated with varying prosthetic volumes.

Level of Evidence 4

Breast Augmentation in Transwomen: Can We have a Formula?

Background  Breast augmentation in transwomen is a surgical challenge as there is no available guideline for preoperative assessment of breast implant size, which caters to them specifically. The aim of our study is to derive a formula for preoperative breast implant size estimation, which would remove the personal bias, help in one-to-one discussion, and better understanding, reducing operative time, cost, and revision surgery rate. Methods  This is a retrospective study conducted from October 2018 to December 2020. We maintained a routine protocol for measurements in our patients, which has been previously published. Linear multivariate regression equation was applied to derive a formula using minimum of parameters, namely, CC (chest circumference at the inframammary fold [IMF]), POMP (circumference at the point of maximum projection of breast mound), and LOWERDIFF (lower value of difference in each breast between the stretched nipple [IMF] and the nonstretched nipple [IMF distance]). Results  A total of 51 transwomen underwent surgery in this period. The mean volume of implant used was 354.51 mL. Complications consisted of pain and discomfort in six patients, delayed healing in two patients, and wound dehiscence in one. A formula for preoperative calculation of breast implant was obtained with these data. A mathematical correlation was found between complications encountered and the percentage by which the inserted implants exceeded the calculated size. Conclusion  We could estimate the breast implant size preoperatively through a simple formula that require only four anthropometric measurements. This equation is a significant advantage for the surgeon and a useful tool for patient education. Its usefulness will be established if applied in prospective studies. From our study, it appears 9% above the calculated size is better avoided.

Quantification of Breast Volume According to age and BMI: A Three-Dimensional MRI Analysis of 400 Women

OBJECTIVE

Breast size alteration is the most common aesthetic surgical procedure worldwide. This study aimed to assess the correlation between breast volume and BMI or age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analyses were conducted utilizing 400 patients selected by a retrospective review of the archives at our institution. Epidemiological data and medical history were assessed. Adjusting for the age and BMI of patient from previously described cohorts, we calculated mean breast volumes per side and differences from the upper and lower percentiles to the mean volumes.

RESULTS

The patients had a median BMI of 23.5 (range: 14.7-45.6) and a median age of 51 (range: 24-82). The average total breast volume increased strongly with BMI (r=0.834, p<0.01) and moderately with age (r=0.305, p<0.01). Within a BMI range of 18-24, breast volumes in the 8th and 18th percentile differ on average by about 50 ml. One BMI unit increase in women with breast sizes in the 10th percentile accounts for a breast volume difference of about 30 ml.

CONCLUSION

BMI strongly correlates with breast size. To achieve natural results, preoperative consultation and planning of aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery must recognize BMI as a major determinant of average breast size.

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 .

Brassiere Cup Size Agreement between Patients and Plastic Surgeons: Do Surgeons and Patients Speak the Same Size Language?

Patients undergoing plastic surgery of the breasts often communicate their size expectations as a brassiere cup size. However, multiple factors may cause a miscommunication between the surgeon and patient when brassiere cup size is used as a measure of results. The aim of this study was to determine the degree of agreement between disclosed and estimated brassiere cup size and also interrater agreement.

Methods

Three-dimensional (3D) scans of 32 subjects were evaluated by 10 plastic surgeons estimating cup size using the American brassiere system. The surgeons were blinded to all parameters, including the 3D surface software-derived volume measures of the Vectra scan. The 3D scans of the anterior torsos were viewed. The plastic surgeons' estimations were compared with the cup sizes stated by the subjects (disclosed cup size), using simple and weighted Kappa statistics.

Results

Agreement between the estimated and disclosed brassiere sizes was only slight (0.1479 ± 0.0605) using a simple Kappa analysis. Even when a Fleiss-Cohen-weighted comparison was used, only moderate agreement (0.6231 ± 0.0589) was found. The interrater agreement intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.705. Rater accuracy varied. The percentage of time spent in cosmetic practice and gender were not significantly correlated with accuracy.

Conclusions

Agreement between cup size disclosed by subjects and estimates by plastic surgeons was low. A miscommunication between the surgeon and patient may occur when using brassiere sizes to communicate wishes and estimates in procedures that involve changes in breast volume.

Content and Readability of Online Recommendations for Breast Implant Size Selection

Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed aesthetic procedures in the United States. Online information is often used by patients to make decisions when undergoing cosmetic procedures. It is vital that online medical information includes relevant decision-making factors and uses language that is understandable to broad patient audiences. Ideally, online resources should aid patient decisions in aesthetic surgical planning, especially implant size selection for breast augmentation. We describe patient decision-making factors and readability of breast implant size selection recommended by private practice plastic surgery webpages.

Methods

Using a depersonalized, anonymous query to Google search engine, the terms "breast implant size factors" and "breast implant size decision" were searched, and 52 plastic surgery private practice webpages were identified. Webpages were analyzed for reported decision-making factors of implant size selection. Readability analyses of webpages were performed with Readability Studio and Hemingway Editor.

Results

The two major decision-making factors for implant size selection reported by webpages were body/tissue-based measurements and surgeon input. Ten factors related to patient lifestyle, surgical goals, and procedural options were also identified. Average webpage scores for five readability measures exceeded recommended levels for medical information.

Conclusions

Reported decision-making factors for implant size selection emphasize a plastic surgeon's expertise but may enhance the patient's role in preoperative planning. Webpages describing breast implant size selection exceed the sixth and eighth grade reading levels recommended by the AMA and NIH, respectively. Improving the readability of webpages will refine the role of online medical information in preoperative planning of breast augmentation.

Use of Three-Dimensional Imaging to Assess the Effectiveness of Volume as a Critical Variable in Breast Implant Selection

BACKGROUND

In breast augmentation, breast base diameter has been recognized as an important variable in implant selection. However, breast implant volume also has a tremendous impact on the final result. Previous methods of preoperative volume determination have been limited to external devices in a bra. Computer-based three-dimensional simulation technology now allows the physician to effectively communicate with the patient preoperatively regarding volume.

METHODS

A cohort of 40 consecutive patients underwent routine breast augmentation with either anatomically shaped or round implants. Five methods of preoperative volume determination including the Crisalix three-dimensional computer imaging system (Crisalix Virtual Aesthetics, Lausanne, Switzerland), along with an associated virtual reality tool, were used to assess the preoperative desires of the patients. A postoperative questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction with each volume determination method.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients, 100 percent were satisfied with their result; however, given the opportunity, 12 percent would have chosen a larger implant. The virtual reality tool and external sizers were shown to be the most effective in choosing an implant. The virtual reality tool was judged to be very helpful (62 percent), very accurate (78 percent), and important (88 percent) in helping patients choose their desired implant size.

CONCLUSION

Prioritizing volume as an implant selection variable in breast augmentation results in a very high rate of patient satisfaction.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Intraoperative 3D Comparison of Round and Anatomical Breast Implants: Dispelling a Myth

Background: Thanks to 3D imaging, it is possible to measure the influence of different parameters on breast augmentation. In this study, we compare the effect of different shapes and sizes of breast implants on the topography of the resulting breast. Furthermore, the impact of different breast implants on inter-landmark distances and on changes of the nipple position was assessed. Methods: This interventional prospective study was carried out on 10 female patients after collecting informed consent. 3D scans of the native and augmented breasts were performed intraoperatively with small, medium, and large sizes of both anatomical and round implants, resulting in a total of n = 130 single breast scans. These scans were analyzed for topographic shift quantification, nipple migration, and inter-landmark distances of the breast. Results: Implant size, but not implant shape leads to significant topographic shifts of the breast (p < 0.001 and p = 0.900, respectively). Both round and anatomical implants lead to a significantly higher volumetric increase in the upper quadrants compared to the lower quadrants (p < 0.001). Nipple migration into the superomedial quadrant was seen in about 90% of augmentations. No evident differences in inter-landmark distances were observed when round and anatomical implants of different sizes were compared. Conclusions: Implant size rather than shape influences the postoperative aesthetic results. No significant difference in topographic shift was found comparing round and anatomical implants, suggesting that both implant shapes result in comparable aesthetic outcomes.

A Randomized Prospective Time and Motion Comparison of Techniques to Process Autologous Fat Grafts

BACKGROUND

Time and motion studies provide a reliable methodology to quantify efficiency and establish recommendations for best practices in autologous fat grafting. The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of graft processing of three frequently used systems for graft preparation.

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective randomized comparison of three methods to prepare adipose tissue for autologous fat grafting: an active filtration system (Revolve; LifeCell Corporation, Branchburg, N.J.), a passive filtration system (PureGraft 250; Cytori Therapeutics, San Diego, Calif.), and centrifugation. An independent observer collected data according to the study's behavioral checklist. The primary outcome measure was rate of adipose tissue processed.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients (mean age, 54 years; mean body mass index, 28.6 kg/m2) were included in the study (15 per arm; one patient was included with intention to treat after a failed screening). The rate of adipose tissue preparation was greater for the active filtration system compared with the others (active filtration: 9.98 ml/min versus passive filtration: 5.66 ml/min versus centrifugation: 2.47 ml/min). Similarly, there was a significant difference in total grafting time (active: 82.7 ± 8.51 minutes versus passive: 152 ± 13.1 minutes, p = 0.0005; versus centrifugation: 209.9 ± 28.5 minutes, p = 0.0005); however, there was no difference in total operative time (p = 0.82, 0.60).

CONCLUSIONS

As the number of fat grafting procedures increases, there is interest in developing techniques to harvest, process, and inject fat to improve clinical outcomes and operative efficiency. The results of this study indicate that an active fat processing system is more time efficient at graft preparation than a passive system or centrifugation.

The Use of Anatomic Implants in Aesthetic Breast Surgery

Anatomic implants were introduced in the late 1980s, gaining popularity through the 1990s and beyond. The moratorium on silicone meant that the use of theses devices was less diffuse in the US and has remained so. Fifth-generation devices had improved form stability with more aggressive texturization to enhance soft tissue interaction. The ability to vary height, width and projection independently creates much versatility in their use for complex anatomical situations producing natural results. The impact of BIA-ALCL has had a significant impact on their use.

The Nomenclature, Terminology and Lexicon of Breast Surgery: Are We Really Saying the Same Thing?

This study investigated inconsistencies in the use of descriptors in breast surgery and recommends a novel nomenclature that will be adopted and standardized among plastic surgeons. The study used a modified Delphi methodology to first identify redundant descriptors or those with multiple interpretations, and then achieve consensus on ideal recommended nomenclature in breast surgery. The Delphi panel agreed that there was misuse of and lack of a clear definition for several terms, and recommended removal of these subjective terms. Replacement with more anatomic nomenclature was suggested. Stretch deformity, pectoral banding, and implant-gland mismatch were introduced as new terms.

"Topographic Shift": a new digital approach to evaluating topographic changes of the female breast

PURPOSE

To assess precise topographic changes of the breast, objective documentation and evaluation of pre- and postoperative results are crucial. New technologies for mapping the body using digital, three-dimensional surface measurements have offered novel ways to numerically assess the female breast. Due to the lack of clear demarcation points of the breast contour, the selection of landmarks on the breast is highly dependent on the examiner, and, therefore, is prone to error when conducting before-after comparisons of the same breast. This study describes an alternative to volumetric measurements, focusing on topographic changes of the female breast, based on three-dimensional scans.

METHOD

The study was designed as an interventional prospective study of 10 female volunteers who had planned on having aesthetic breast augmentation with anatomical, textured implants. Three dimensional scans of the breasts were performed intraoperatively, first without and then with breast implants. The topographic change was determined as the mean distance between two three-dimensional layers before and after augmentation. This mean distance is defined as the Topographic Shift.

RESULTS

The mean implant volume was 283 cc (SD = 68.6 cc, range = 210-395 cc). The mean Topographic Shift was 7.4 mm (SD = 1.9 mm, range = 4.8-10.7 mm). The mean Topographic Shifts per quadrant were: I: 8.0 mm (SD = 3.3 mm); II: 9.2 mm (SD = 3.1 mm); III: 6.9 mm (SD = 3.5 mm); IV: 1.9 mm (SD = 4.3 mm).

CONCLUSION

The Topographic Shift, describing the mean distance between two three-dimensional layers (for example before and after a volume changing therapy), is a new approach that can be used for assessing topographic changes of a body area. It was found that anatomical, textured breast implants cause a topographic change, particularly on the upper breast, in quadrant II, the décolleté.

A multi-center, retrospective, preliminary observational study to assess the safety of BellaGel® after augmentation mammaplasty

Background

BellaGel® is the only cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant from a Korean manufacturer, and it was first developed in 2005. It was approved by the CE in 2008, thus becoming the first Asian breast implant available in the EU. We conducted this study to assess the safety of BellaGel® in patients receiving augmentation mammaplasty.

Methods

We evaluated a consecutive series of 239 patients (478 breasts) who received esthetic augmentation mammaplasty using the BellaGel® (round smooth, round textured, round nanotextured, and anatomical textured types of implant) (HansBiomed Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea) at three clinics in Korea (JW Plastic Surgery Center, BS The Body Plastic Surgery Clinic and Grace Plastic Surgery Clinic) during a period from December 1, 2015 to January 31, 2018.

Results

A total of 239 patients with a mean age of 33.1 ± 8.5 years old were followed up during a mean period of 399.58 ± 232.71 days, where there were no cases of capsular contracture in our clinical series of the patients. Other complications include one case (0.4%) of seroma, three cases (1.3%) of hematoma, and one case (0.4%) of infection. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the cumulative incidences of complications between the four types of the BellaGel® (χ2 = 2.322, df = 3, P = 0.508). Furthermore, the cumulative Kaplan-Meier survival rate was estimated at 0.979 (95% CI 0.961–0.997).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the BellaGel® is such a safe breast implant that surgeons might consider using it for esthetic augmentation mammaplasty.

Level of evidence: Level III, risk/prognostic study.

Patient-Awareness Survey: Do Breast Implants Affect the Acquisition and Accuracy of Screening Mammography?

OBJECTIVE

Breast implant augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgical procedure performed in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with breast augmentation surgery are aware of the effect of breast implants on the mammographic detection of cancer.

METHODS

An institutional review board exempt patient awareness survey was distributed at a single breast imaging facility to women undergoing screening mammography. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between patients with and without breast implants.

RESULTS

The respondents were divided into three groups: no prior breast surgery (74%; 524/711), breast surgery with implants (21%; 152/711), and breast surgery without implants (5%; 35/711). Patients with breast implants were more aware that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (75%; 105/141) and that implants result in the need for more mammogram views (70%; 103/147), as compared with patients with no surgery (46%; 221/484 and 31%; 147/478, respectively) (P < 0.001). More women with breast implants reported learning from breast imaging staff rather than from their surgeon that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (46%; 49/106 vs. 38%; 40/106). Of 137 respondents, 35% (n = 48) reported that the effect of implants on their mammogram was discussed preoperatively. Of those who did not recall a preoperative discussion, 42% (16/38) indicated this knowledge would have factored into their decision to get breast implants.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights an opportunity for providers to engage in more education and shared decision-making with patients considering breast augmentation surgery to ensure preoperative counseling includes discussion of the effect of implants on mammography.

The Tissue-Based Triad in Augmentation Mastopexy: Single-Stage Technical Refinements

BACKGROUND

The number of patients seeking augmentation mastopexy has increased over the last several decades. The conflicting goals of augmentation (tissue expansion) and mastopexy (tissue reduction) have led to higher revision rates, decreased patient satisfaction, and pending litigation. Some have even argued for staging of all augmentation mastopexy procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to review the senior author's (W.P.A.) process-oriented approach to single-stage augmentation mastopexy and to detail the technical framework to produce reliable, reproducible, safe results in a 1-stage augmentation mastopexy.

METHODS

A prospectively collected patient database from January 2007 until January 2018 was reviewed. All single-stage augmentation mastopexy patients were evaluated, including patient demographics, operative details, complications, and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 16.9 months, average patient age was 38.0 years, and average implant size was 285.8 cc. A total of 9 (3.6%) patients required reoperation and only 2 (0.8%) required explantation. Fourteen (5.6%) patients developed delayed wound healing that responded to local wound care alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of a safe and reliable processed approach to single-stage augmentation mastopexy is highly predictable with low reoperation rates. The technical refinements presented have led to increased consistency in delivering high-quality results to patients in a procedure fraught with challenges.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Safe anesthesia for office-based plastic surgery: Proceedings from the PRS Korea 2018 meeting in Seoul, Korea

There has been an exponential increase in plastic surgery cases over the last 20 years, surging from 2.8 million to 17.5 million cases per year. Seventy-two percent of these cases are being performed in the office-based or ambulatory setting. There are certain advantages to performing aesthetic procedures in the office, but several widely publicized fatalities and malpractice claims has put the spotlight on patient safety and the lack of uniform regulation of office-based practices. While 33 states currently have legislation for office-based surgery and anesthesia, 17 states have no mandate to report patient deaths or adverse outcomes. The literature on office-base surgery and anesthesia has demonstrated significant improvements in patient safety over the last 20 years. In the following review of the proceedings from the PRS Korea 2018 meeting, we discuss several key concepts regarding safe anesthesia for officebased cosmetic surgery. These include the safe delivery of oxygen, appropriate local anesthetic usage and the avoidance of local anesthetic toxicity, the implementation of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocols, multimodal analgesic techniques with less reliance on narcotic pain medications, the use of surgical safety checklists, and incorporating “the patient” into the surgical decision-making process through decision aids.

Breast Implant Selection: Consensus Recommendations Using a Modified Delphi Method

Background:

Geographical differences in breast implant selection approaches exist, and clinical data to guide the process are limited. Developing knowledge of implant-related risk factors further complicates the process. This analysis aimed to establish expert consensus on considerations for breast implant selection in Australia and New Zealand based on practice patterns in those countries.

Methods:

A modified Delphi method was used to gain consensus from experts in breast augmentation surgery in Australia and New Zealand. Panelists anonymously completed an initial questionnaire on current considerations in implant selection, discussed a summary of their responses in a live meeting, and completed a final consensus survey based on their live recommendations.

Results:

Seven panelists completed the final consensus survey. Consensus recommendations included ensuring consideration of proper surgical technique (pocket formation, positioning of implant) and patient tissue and anatomical characteristics, weighing relative expected results of various surface textures, sizes, and degrees of cohesivity, and careful contemplation of the migration risk.

Conclusions:

This modified Delphi exercise provided consensus recommendations on the key factors involved in implant selection from the perspective of plastic surgeons with practices in Australia and New Zealand. A primary recommendation was that the choice of implant for each patient should be individualized to patient tissue and anatomical characteristics.

Round versus Anatomical Implants in Primary Cosmetic Breast Augmentation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Choosing implant shape (round or anatomical) is one of the most essential yet controversial decisions in cosmetic breast augmentation. Many surgeons choose implant shape based on personal experience or expert opinion. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the aesthetic effect between anatomical and round implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies that compared anatomical and round implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation. Primary outcomes were postoperative aesthetic effect and correct identification rate of implant shape. Random effects models were used to obtain pooled standardized mean difference and 95 percent confidence intervals.

RESULTS

One randomized comparative and four observational comparative studies met the inclusion criteria. No aesthetic superiority was found in the anatomical implant group with regard to overall appearance (standardized mean difference, 0.06; 95 percent CI, -0.40 to 0.53), naturalness (standardized mean difference, 0.18; 95 percent CI, -1.51 to 1.15), projection, upper pole contour, and lower pole contour. Pooled correct identification rate of implant shape by plastic surgeons was 52 percent (95 percent CI, 0.46 to 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, anatomical implants do not seem to have an aesthetic superiority compared to round implants. Plastic surgeons seemed to be unable to accurately differentiate the two implant shapes in vivo. Further studies should focus on identifying the specific indications for the use of anatomical implants.

Physical Properties of Silicone Gel Breast Implants

BACKGROUND

Surgical applications using breast implants are individualized operations to fill and shape the breast. Physical properties beyond shape, size, and surface texture are important considerations during implant selection.

OBJECTIVES

Compare form stability, gel material properties, and shell thickness of textured shaped, textured round, and smooth round breast implants from 4 manufacturers: Allergan, Mentor, Sientra, and Establishment Labs, through bench testing.

METHODS

Using a mandrel height gauge, form stability was measured by retention of dimensions on device movement from a horizontal to vertical supported orientation. Dynamic response of the gel material (gel cohesivity, resistance to gel deformation, energy absorption) was measured using a synchronized target laser following application of graded negative pressure. Shell thickness was measured using digital thickness gauge calipers.

RESULTS

Form stability, gel material properties, and shell thickness differed across breast implants. Of textured shaped devices, Allergan Natrelle 410 exhibited greater form stability than Mentor MemoryShape and Sientra Shaped implants. Allergan Inspira round implants containing TruForm 3 gel had greater form stability, higher gel cohesivity, greater resistance to gel deformation, and lower energy absorption than those containing TruForm 2 gel and in turn, implants containing TruForm 1 gel. Shell thickness was greater for textured vs smooth devices, and differed across styles.

CONCLUSIONS

Gel cohesivity, resistance to gel deformation, and energy absorption are directly related to form stability, which in turn determines shape retention. These characteristics provide information to aid surgeons choosing an implant based on surgical application, patient tissue characteristics, and desired outcome.

Fat Graft in Composite Breast Augmentation with Round Implants: A New Concept for Breast Reshaping

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation surgery with implants is one of the most common aesthetic surgical procedures. Round and anatomical textured implants are employed very often, and fat grafting has proven to be a very useful complementary procedure in breast augmentation. Many authors report a more natural result with anatomical compared to round implants. Nevertheless, anatomical implants can be associated with complications such as implant rotation with subsequent shape distortion. In this article, we propose a combination of high-profile round implants and fat grafting to obtain a natural result analyzing its impact on the aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

In this study, we report our personal approach on 31 consecutive patients undergoing primary aesthetic breast augmentation with high-profile round implants and fat grafting. We describe our personal technique of breast augmentation via the periareolar approach and fat grafting. We evaluated short- and medium-term aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction using a 10-point VAS scale.

RESULTS

We achieved in all cases high patient satisfaction and good aesthetic outcomes with a "natural" breast shape and a "smoothened" upper pole with low complication rates. The technique is safe, simple, fast, and it leads to high levels of patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations show that the combination of high-profile round implants and fat grafting in aesthetic breast augmentation can improve the aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction as with anatomical implants eliminating the risk of implant rotation.

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 .

Breast augmentation surgery using an inframammary fold incision in Southeast Asian women: Patient-reported outcomes

Background

This analysis presents patient-reported outcomes of breast augmentation procedures performed in Singapore using an inframammary fold incision and the “5 Ps” best practice principles for breast augmentation. These data are the first of their kind in Southeast Asian patients.

Methods

Through a retrospective chart review, patients who underwent primary breast augmentation with anatomical form-stable silicone gel breast implants using an inframammary fold incision were followed for ≥6 months postoperatively. The BREAST-Q Augmentation Module (scores standardized to 0 [worst] – 100 [best]) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS; 1 [normal skin] to 10 [worst scar imaginable]) were administered. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Patient-reported events were collected.

Results

Twenty-two Southeast Asian patients (mean age, 35.1 years) completed ≥1 postoperative BREAST-Q and POSAS assessment and were assessed 11 months to 5.5 years postoperatively. The mean postoperative BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial well-being scores were 69.2 and 84.0, respectively. The mean POSAS score for their overall opinion of the scar was 4.2; the mean scores for all scar characteristics ranged from 1.2 to 4.2. Over 90% of patients (20/22) said that they would recommend the procedure. Patient complaints following surgery included anisomastia (possibly pre-existing; n=2), sensory loss at the nipple (n=2) or around the nipple (n=3), scarring (n=4), and slight capsular contracture (n=1). No patients required reoperation.

Conclusions

Southeast Asian patients reported high long-term satisfaction scores on the BREAST-Q scale and with their scar characteristics following breast augmentation using an inframammary fold incision, and nearly all said they would recommend this procedure. No reoperations were necessary in patients assessed for up to 5.5 years postoperatively.

Comparison between different methods of breast implant volume choice and degree of postoperative satisfaction

OBJECTIVES

to assess the degree of patient satisfaction after undergoing breast augmentation and compare three different, easy, inexpensive and universal methods of preoperative choice of breast implant volume.

METHODS

a prospective study was carried out at University Hospital Pedro Ernesto of State University of Rio de Janeiro, in 94 women from Rio de Janeiro, aged 18 to 49 years, submitted to breast augmentation mammaplasty with breast implant due to hypomastia. All implants were textured, with a round base and high projection and were introduced into the retroglandular space through an inframammary access. The patients were divided into three groups: Control, Silicone and MamaSize®, with 44, 25 and 25 patients, respectively. Satisfaction questionnaires were applied in the pre and postoperative periods by the same evaluator, through the visual analogue scale, in which '0' meant very unsatisfied and '100' very satisfied for the four variables: shape, size, symmetry and consistency. The degree of satisfaction with the surgical scar was also assessed in the postoperative period.

RESULTS

when the preoperative and postoperative satisfaction levels were compared, there was a difference in all variables for the three groups, with statistical significance. However, when the postoperative data were compared with each other, there was no significant difference. The degree of satisfaction with the surgical scar was high.

CONCLUSION

the augmentation mammaplasty with breast implant had a high index of satisfaction among patients. However, there was no difference in the degree of satisfaction in the postoperative period between the three methodologies of breast volume measurement.

Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.

RESULTS

No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Decisional pathways in breast augmentation: how to improve outcomes through accurate pre-operative planning

Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in aesthetic plastic surgery. Accurate pre-operative planning is crucial to obtain the best outcomes. We present our planning method deriving from a more than 30-year experience in aesthetic breast surgery, matching together patients tissues' characteristics and patients' wishes. We schematized our planning method in an easy-to-use flow diagram to help the decisional process in breast augmentation.