Techniques to Repair Implant Malposition after Breast Augmentation: A Review

Nonadherence of Polyurethane Implants: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background  Biointegration of polyurethane (PU) implants providing their stable position years after surgery ensures predictable results of breast augmentation and reconstruction almost eliminating implant factor as a cause of complications. However, in rare cases PU implants appear to be not connected to the surrounding tissues. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of PU implant nonadherence after primary breast augmentations and augmentation mastopexies with dual plane implant position, to analyze possible causes, and to propose preventive measures and treatment possibilities of this complication. Methods  The results of primary aesthetic surgeries in 333 patients with dual plane PU implant placement were analyzed. Patients were evaluated clinically, and pictures and videos taken in different periods after the surgery were compared. Particular attention was given to the changes in implant position and the appearance of asymmetries over time. Results  PU implant nonadherence was found in seven patients. It can be divided into primary and secondary and may be complete or partial. Primary nonadherence was found in two cases (0.6%), and secondary in five (1.5%) cases. Possible influencing factors could have been traumatic surgical technique, seroma, hematoma, or physical trauma. The average follow-up was 33 months (1 month-15 years). Conclusion  Biointegration is mandatory for the long-term predictable results with PU implants. PU implant nonadherence leads to implant malposition and may cause typical complications connected to non-PU implants. Improvements in surgical maneuvers, manufacturing process, and weight reduction of the implant may be beneficial for the stability of the results. Level of Evidence  V.

Internal Bra: A literature Review and Sub-Classification of Definitions

BACKGROUND

The term 'internal bra' refers to a range of techniques that aim to stabilise the position of the breast and improve longevity of surgical results. It is increasingly being used to describe techniques in surgical literature and on patient information platforms, including social media. However a lack of consistency in the use of the term is a potential source of confusion and conflicting information.

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review aims to improve understanding of what is meant by the term 'internal bra', by providing an overview of the different techniques it refers to and suggesting more specific terminology for use going forward.

METHODS

A literature search of the Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases was conducted to identify papers in which a surgical technique was described using the term 'internal bra'.

RESULTS

'Internal bra' techniques can be categorised into 5 groups: mesh techniques, acellular dermal matrix techniques, suture techniques, dermal flap techniques, and muscle techniques. Promising results exist for techniques in each group; however, research is generally limited by small studies with short follow up periods, and significant inconsistencies exist in use of the term 'internal bra'.

CONCLUSIONS

The titles of the five groups identified in this paper should be used going forward when discussing 'internal bra' techniques, in order to bring greater clarity to both surgical literature and patient information. Further research is also required to establish if 'internal bra' techniques truly improve longevity of surgical results and if one technique, or group of techniques, is superior.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Natural Shaping of Acellular Dermal Matrices for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction via Expansile Kirigami

To complete a successful and aesthetic breast reconstruction for breast cancer survivors, tissue reinforcing acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are widely utilized to create slings/pockets to keep breast implants or autologous tissue transfer secured against the chest wall in the desired location. However, ADM sheets are 2D and cannot completely cover the entire implant without wrinkles. Here, guided by finite element modeling, a kirigami strategy is presented to cut the ADM sheets with locally and precisely controlled stretchability, curvature, and elasticity. Upon expansion, a single kirigami ADM sheet can conformably wrap the implant regardless of the shape and size, forming a natural teardrop shape; contour cuts prescribe the topographical height and fractal cuts in the center ensures horizontal expandability and thus conformability. This kirigami ADM can provide support to the reconstructed breast in the desired regions, potentially offering optimal outcomes and patient-specific reconstruction, while minimizing operative time and cost.

A New Technique for Breast Pocket Adjustment: Argon Beam Thermal Capsulorrhaphy

Implant malposition remains one of the main complications of aesthetic breast augmentation and alloplastic breast reconstruction with expanders and implants. Many capsulorrhaphy techniques have been described to adjust the breast pocket and correct the malposition. In this study, we tested the efficacy of the argon beam coagulator (ABC) for lateral capsulorrhaphy on breast reconstruction patients at the time of expander replacement with a permanent implant. We also experimentally compared the effects of the ABC and the standard electrocautery on fragments of healthy breast capsule. We noted a 69.5% capsule shrinkage with the ABC versus 46.8% with the standard electrocautery. We concluded that breast capsulorrhaphy using the ABC is a safe and efficient technique for the correction of breast implant malposition in both reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery.

The Key of Pocket Dissection in Transaxillary Dual-plane Breast Augmentation: How to Control Inferior Malposition of Smooth Implants

BACKGROUND

Inferior implant malposition after breast augmentation is the second most common reason for revision surgery. This article introduces the new concept of dual-plane pocket formation in transaxillary breast augmentation to prevent inferior implant malposition by preserving the continuity of the superficial layer of the deep pectoralis fascia.

METHODS

Patients who underwent transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation performed from January 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. With the aid of the endoscope, dissection proceeded. During pectoralis muscle origin detachment, the superficial layer of deep pectoralis fascia was preserved. After making the pocket, silicone gel implants were inserted. A retrospective chart review was done to collect data on postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 251 patients were performed, and the mean follow-up time was 20.6 months. In a total of 28 cases of complications (9.6%), there were 2 cases of reoperations. In a total of three patients (1.2%) of implant malposition, one patient (0.4%) developed mild bilateral bottoming-out deformity.

CONCLUSIONS

Meticulous dissection by endoscopy could avoid the destruction of the superficial layer of the deep pectoralis fascia during pocket dissection and produce an intact fascial system with its own continuity at the inframammary fold (IMF). A well-controlled envelope over the implant and a supporting structure underneath it are important in breast augmentation to prevent inferior implant malposition.

Reoperative Augmentation Mammoplasty: An Algorithm to Optimize Soft-Tissue Support, Pocket Control, and Smooth Implant Stability with Composite Reverse Inferior Muscle Sling (CRIMS) and its Technical Variations

BACKGROUND

Reoperative augmentation mammoplasty (RAM) is a challenging procedure, with the highest rates of complications and revision. Complications include implant malposition, lateral displacement, bottoming out, and rotation. These deformities can be addressed with various procedures, but the pocket control and stability of the new smooth implant surface may present limitations.

OBJECTIVES

This study revisits a previously described predictable approach in primary breast augmentation and defines a surgical treatment algorithm for RAM technique selection.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2021, 72 patients (144 breasts) underwent RAM with composite reverse inferior muscle sling (CRIMS) technique and its technical variations (types I-IV). CRIMS technique involves placing a silicone gel implant into the submuscular (SM) pocket with an inferior sling of the pectoralis major muscle based on the dimensions of the implant, in combination with support points/dermal bridge sutures to stabilize the implant and glandular tissue at the lower breast pole (LBP). Reasons for surgery were ptosis (92%), implant and malposition (59.6%). Patients were followed for at least 6 months in 5 cases (6.9%), at least 12 months in 50 cases (69.4%), for at least 36 months in 10 cases (13.8%), and more than 36 months in 7 cases (9.7%) (mean 34 months; range 6-48 months). Patients were evaluated in terms of resolution of symptoms, satisfaction, and complications. Three-dimensional imaging (3DI) obtained from the Divina scanner system was used and followed up for 1 year to evaluate breast position, lower pole stretch (LPS), and intermammary distance (IMD).

RESULTS

Eleven cases of minor complications were observed in 9 patients (12.5%): hypertrophic scarring in 4 (5.5%), wound dehiscence in 4 (5.5%), Baker II/III capsular contracture in 1 (1.3%). SmoothSilk surface silicone implants were used in all cases, with an average volume decrease of 120 cc. Sixty-eight patients (94.4%) were either very satisfied/satisfied with their aesthetic result. Breast images were performed in a group of 65 patients (90.2%), and in 7 breasts (10.7%), localized oil cysts were observed. The value for LPS was 7.87% (p <0.0001) between 10 days and 1 year, with the majority occurring early in the first 3 months, indicating that the LBP/implant remains steady during the last months of follow-up. No cases of fat necrosis/seroma were observed. There were no signs of intra/extracapsular ruptures, capsular contracture. There were 2 cases (3%) of minimal implant displacement and no cases of rotation.

CONCLUSIONS

CRIMS and its variations can be performed successfully in RAM. An algorithmic approach can facilitate the pre- and intraoperative decision-making process and provide the new pocket control and implant stability with acceptable complication rates. Further accurate evaluation is recommended to understand the benefits or disadvantages of CRIMS compared to other RAM 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 .

One-Stage Mastopexy-Lipofilling after Implant Removal in Cosmetic Breast Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Revising unsatisfactory outcomes in breast augmentation represents one of the most challenging procedures in aesthetic breast surgery. Different techniques for revising unsatisfactory outcomes in breast augmentation have been described, which can be summarized in two options: implant replacement procedures and implant explantation procedures. Implant explantation procedures can be performed alone or in combination with other techniques to restore volume. Depending on the native volume, the shape and the elasticity of the remaining breast tissue, implant removal can be also associated with mastopexy, auto-augmentation mammoplasty or fat graft. This article portrays our series of combined mastopexy and lipofilling after implant explantation for revising unsatisfactory outcomes of breast augmentation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A prospective observational study was performed including all patients underwent cosmetic one-stage mastopexy-lipofilling after implant removal. Collected data included patient's age and BMI, smoking, previous scar location (periareolar, inframammary fold or trans-axillary), implant characteristics (size and location), reason why patient wants to remove the implant (capsular contracture, implant rupture, animation deformity, chronic pain, asymmetry), mean liposuction and fat injection volume, type of capsulectomy, mean operating time and postoperative complications. Cosmetic results and patient satisfaction were evaluated using the 5 points Likert scale and BreastQ reduction/mastopexy module, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 14 patients (28 breasts) were included with a mean follow-up of 11.3 months. Mean liposuction and injection volumes were 980 mL and 295 mL, respectively. Regarding breast volume, a reduction in one-cup size was noted in 100% of cases. Only one patient (7.69%) requested additional breast volume and underwent a second fat grafting session. Regarding aesthetic outcomes, the mean scores for breast volume, shape, symmetry, quality of scars, nipple-areola complex and donor site shape were 4.2, 4.2, 4.9, 4, 4.3 and 4.7, respectively. BreastQ showed an improvement of patients reported satisfaction with a median (Quartile Rank) score increase of 19 points for the "satisfaction with breast" domain (p < .00001) and a decrease of 17 points for the "physical well-being" domain (p < .00001). "Satisfaction with outcomes" median (Quartile Rank) score was 72.

CONCLUSION

Combined mastopexy and lipofilling after implant removal represents a new tool in plastic surgeon armamentarium. This technique is indicated in patients who do not desire anymore breast implant, presenting ptosis of the remaining breast gland and donor site availability. Our article suggested that combined mastopexy and lipofilling achieves satisfactory aesthetic results and excellent patient-reported outcomes.

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 .

Implant Replacement or Removal: What Happens after Capsular Contracture? A German Study Examining Breast Implant Revision Surgery and Patient Choices in 946 Cases

Introduction

Capsular contracture most often leads to implant revision surgery for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes. However, little is known about which operation is chosen when revision surgery has to be performed. We performed analysis of revision indications and performed revision surgery considering implant removal or replacement and additional surgical procedures. To our knowledge, this study presents the largest German single-center analysis regarding implant revision surgery after the onset of complications.

Methods

Retrospective 10-year data analysis of a single-center population undergoing breast implant revision surgery.

Results

Capsular contracture was the most frequent finding before reoperation, both removal and replacement (p < 0.05). It was linked to longer duration of in situ implant placement (p < 0.05) and more frequently in reconstructive patients (p < 0.05). Implant replacement was performed more often before definite implant removal for reconstructive patients (p < 0.05). Mean duration of in situ implant placement before definite removal was lower for reconstructive patients (p = 0.005). Overall reconstructive patients were older than aesthetic patients (p < 0.05). After implant removal, 61.7% of aesthetic patients chose to undergo mastopexy, 54.7% of reconstructive patients opted for autologous breast reconstruction, and 25.4% did not choose an additional surgical procedure after implant removal.

Conclusion

Significant differences are observed for reconstructive and aesthetic patients regarding indication leading to revision surgery, time of revision surgery, and the type of performed revision surgery itself. After implant removal, more than 60% of aesthetic patients undergo mastopexy, more than half of reconstructive patients choose autologous breast reconstruction, and over a quarter of patients choose no additional surgical procedures.

Muscle-Splitting Transaxillary Revision Breast Augmentation-A Single Surgeon's Experience

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 .

Revision Breast Augmentation

Breast augmentation is consistently one of the most commonly performed aesthetic operations every year. Unfortunately, revision rates following primary augmentation remain as high as 36%. There are several causes for revision breast augmentation; however, the most common and challenging of these include capsular contracture, implant malposition, and ptosis of the aging breast following augmentation. Successful management of these problems requires knowledge on how to best treat the implant and capsule with the corresponding soft tissue simultaneously. While surgical management is important, understanding the pathological causes of these entities during the primary operation can reduce the need for revision. This article utilizes the most up-to-date literature to review the appropriate clinical evaluation and surgical management of these complex cases.

Revisional Breast Surgery: Are Surgical Plans Changed if the Patient Has a Textured Device?

SUMMARY

The authors reviewed the available evidence on revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery with the aim of investigating whether any difference in the surgical approach should be proposed if the patient has a textured device. They included in their review 31 studies presenting different approaches for revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery (both aesthetic and reconstructive), with a level of evidence ranging from 4 to 5. None of the included studies proposed different surgical approaches for revision surgery in patients carrying textured devices. The authors conclude that no different surgical attitudes in revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery should be adopted if the patient has a textured device according to the available evidence, when a correct approach is performed to face the complication or adverse event, following a thorough preoperative study of the patient with the proper diagnostic tools.

Subpectoral Implant Repositioning With Partial Capsule Preservation: Treating the Long-Term Complications of Subglandular Breast Augmentation

Background

Patients with long-term complications associated with subglandular breast augmentation are being seen in increasing numbers in the Southern California community. Late deformities include a characteristic “slide-down” deformity as well as capsular contracture, implant wrinkling, and nipple-areola complex enlargement. Repositioning the implant to a subpectoral pocket is a recognized revisionary technique to treat this problem; however, technical details of how this is accomplished are lacking in the literature.

Objectives

To review our technique for treating long-term complications associated with subglandular implants using subpectoral repositioning with partial capsule preservation and mastopexy, without the need for an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or mesh.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing subpectoral repositioning over the course of 6 years was performed. Patient data and long-term outcomes were assessed. A technique is presented utilizing a partial capsulectomy that preserves a portion of the capsule as an ADM/mesh equivalent, ensuring adequate implant coverage and preventing window shading of the pectoralis major muscle.

Results

Twenty-four patients with subglandular implants and slide-down deformity as well as other associated complications including capsular contracture, implant wrinkling, and enlarged areolas underwent revision surgery with a subpectoral site change. Often, patients presented many years after their initial augmentation (mean 18 years, range 4-38 years). The average patient follow-up was 3.1 years (range 1.0-6.8 years). Two patients required minor revisions with local anesthetic, while another 2 revisions required general anesthesia.

Conclusions

Long-term deformities associated with subglandular breast augmentation can reliably be corrected by subpectoral repositioning, mastopexy, and utilization of residual breast capsule in the place of an ADM or mesh.

Level of Evidence: 4

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.

Iatrogenic Symmastia: Causes and Suggested Repair Technique

BACKGROUND

Various theories exist to explain the etiology of iatrogenic symmastia. Subglandular over-dissection of the medial breast pocket over the sternum, disruption of midline sternal fascia, oversized implant base diameter, and over-dissection of the medial pectoralis muscle attachments to the sternum are popular explanations.

OBJECTIVES

The authors hypothesized that the most common risk factor for iatrogenic symmastia is subpectoral breast augmentation.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted including all symmastia patients who underwent surgery from January 2008 to April 2018 by a single surgeon (C.L.M.). ASAPS members were also surveyed regarding the etiology and incidence of symmastia in their practice.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients with symmastia were included in the retrospective chart review. All had previous subpectoral breast augmentation. In the ASAPS survey, 91 plastic surgeons reported seeing an average of 2.2 consults for acquired symmastia over the preceding year; 1.9 of the 2.2 (84.9%) acquired symmastia consults previously underwent subpectoral breast augmentation. Most surgeons attributed these patients' symmastia to over-dissection of the medial pectoralis muscle attachments to the sternum.

CONCLUSIONS

Symmastia is most often caused by pectoralis major sternal dehiscence during subpectoral breast augmentation. In the senior author's experience, all patients with iatrogenic symmastia previously had a submuscular breast augmentation. The ASAPS survey supports multiple causes for symmastia with retromuscular breast augmentation occurring in the majority of patients. Repair of symmastia should include securing Scarpa's fascia to the sternum, reattaching the pectoralis major to the sternum, avoiding another subpectoral implant, and using postoperative modalities to protect the repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4