Role of Macrotextured Shaped Extra Full Projection Cohesive Gel Implants in Primary Aesthetic Breast Augmentation

A Shakespearean Dilemma in Breast Augmentation: to Use Drains or not? a Systematic Review : Drains in Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly requested and performed plastic surgery procedures. In order to prevent early postoperative complications such as seroma or hematoma, surgical drains could be useful. The aim is to perform a systematic review of the literature on the use of surgical drains in primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

This review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were queried in search of clinical studies describing the use of surgical drains in women undergoing primary breast augmentation with implants and documenting seroma and/or hematoma formation rate and/or infection rate.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 2596 studies, and 162 were found relevant. Full-text review and application of our inclusion criteria to all retrieved papers produced 38 articles that met inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 16 papers reported the use of surgical drains in breast augmentation, while in the remaining 22 articles drains were not used. Only 5 studies specifically investigated the role and effectiveness of surgical drains in augmentation mammaplasty and its possible relationship with complication rate such as seroma, hematoma or infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar complication rates emerged from the analyzed articles, because of the heterogeneity of the studies, we were not able to demonstrate specifically whether drain use affects the rate of early postoperative complications such as seroma, hematoma and infection. Additional randomized controlled trials are strongly advocated in order to provide the necessary scientific evidence.

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 .

Quantitative Analysis of Nipple to Inframammary Fold Distance Variation in Tuberous Breast Augmentation: Is there a Progressive Lower Pole Expansion?

INTRODUCTION

In patients with short nipple to inframammary fold (N-IMF) distance, as in tuberous breast, the cohesivity and gel distribution of shaped implants work as a controlled tissue expander, progressively adapting the tissues to the implant's shape. This phenomenon translates into a gradual increase of the N-IMF distance over time, but the true extent to which this occurs has not been quantified to date. This study aims to quantify the postoperative variation of the N-IMF distance in tuberous breast treated with shaped cohesive silicone breast implants.

METHODS

We did a retrospective review of a prospective maintained database of all consecutive patients with bilateral Groulleau I and II tuberous breasts who underwent primary breast augmentation between April 2017 and May 2018 at our institution. To quantify the lower mammary pole's morphological changes, we evaluated the N-IMF distance under maximal stretch as an endpoint. We recorded this value at time 0 (preoperative), immediate post-op (equivalent to the distance planned preoperatively) and at month 1, month 6 and 1-year post-op. Then we calculated the average N-IMF distance variation of our sample of patients with a 99% interval of confidence for each breast obtained. Comparisons were performed using the Sign test and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The average implant weight was 353g (range 290-450; SD ±46.147). Of the 54 breasts analyzed, the immediate post-op N-IMF distance was on average 2.43 cm longer than the preop IMF with a 99% confidence interval between 2.01 and 2.86 and SD of ±1.22. The mean difference between the preop N-IMF distance and after 1, 6 and 12 months was respectively 2.78 cm (SD,1.56) (99% CI, 2.24-3.34), 3.08 cm (SD, 1.57) (99% CI, 2.53-3.64), and 3.36 (1.55) (99% CI, 2.82-3.91) Comparing immediate postoperative nipple to inframammary fold distance (N-IMF) to the 1, 6 and 12 months N-IMF values, an average of 4.23% (CI 1.3-7.16), 7.74% (CI 4.25-11.23) and 10.84% (CI 7.21-14.49) of skin length, was gained respectively. According to implants' weight, subgroup analysis showed that implants > 400 g were associated with significantly higher N-IMF distance increase (p <0.05) compared to implants < 400 g.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a significant progressive postoperative increase in N-IMF distance should be expected in all cases of tuberous breast augmentation with anatomical implants over a 1 year period. This aspect may have an important implication on the IMF incision and the new fold position preoperative planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV.

Controllable Factors to Reduce the Rate of Complications in Primary Breast Augmentation: A Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Aesthetic augmentation mammoplasties are one of the most demanded procedures performed in the aesthetic surgical sector. Because of the high epidemiological impact, the evaluation of measures to reduce the risk of complications is highly needed. The goal of this review is to evaluate the current literature for successful actions to reduce the risk of complications in aesthetic breast augmentation.

METHODS

We searched Medline-listed journals for "complications primary breast augmentation" and defined surgeon-dependent and patient-dependent factors within those.

RESULTS

Most of the strategies to reduce the risk of any complication are based on meticulous hygienic precautions and adequate training of the surgeon. The current literature suggests complications such as capsular contracture, infection and BIA-ALCL are closely linked with bacterial contamination and therefore can be avoided with different hygienic measures.

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 .