One-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy: A Retrospective Ten-Year Review of 2183 Consecutive Procedures

Safety and Efficacy of a Central Pedicle Technique for Mastopexy and Mastopexy with Implant Augmentation

BACKGROUND

The central pedicle technique (CPT) is rarely used to perform mastopexy or mastopexy with implant augmentation despite having robust perfusion and allowing for great exposure, resulting in reproducible results. This study was conducted to review one surgeon's experience using the CPT for both mastopexy and mastopexy with implant augmentation.

METHOD

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who had a mastopexy or mastopexy with augmentation using a standardized CPT from 2017 through 2021 was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were identified for inclusion: 120 had a bilateral central pedicle mastopexy, 75 had bilateral central pedicle mastopexy and implants, and 6 had unilateral central pedicle mastopexy with implants because of asymmetry. Mean follow-up was 11.2 months. The average age was 45.4 years, body mass index 25.1 kg/m², and implant size 275 cc. The overall complication rate was 9.5%: 9.2% for CPT mastopexy and 9.9% for CPT mastopexy with implants. No revisional surgery was requested. None of the patients experienced nipple or skin necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that CPT mastopexy with or without an implant can be performed safely with a low complication rate. Additional benefits include standardized markings before surgery, visualization of the entire breast mound, and reliable perfusion. The technique excels in correcting asymmetry. CPT mastopexy with or without an implant is a safe and effective option for the treatment of breast ptosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Implementation of a Machine Learning Approach Evaluating Risk Factors for Complications after Single-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy

BACKGROUND

Single-stage mastopexy augmentation is a much-debated intervention due to its complexity and the associated relatively high complication rates. This study aimed to reevaluate the risk factors for these complications using a novel approach based on artificial intelligence and to demonstrate its possible limitations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Complete datasets of patients who underwent single-staged augmentation mastopexy during 2014-2023 at one institution by a single surgeon were collected retrospectively. These were subsequently processed and analyzed by CART, RF and XGBoost algorithms.

RESULTS

A total of 342 patients were included in the study, of which 43 (12.57%) reported surgery-associated complications, whereby capsular contracture (n = 19) was the most common. BMI represented the most important variable for the development of complications (FIS = 0.44 in CART). 2.9% of the patients expressed the desire for implant change in the course, with absence of any complications. A statistically significant correlation between smoking and the desire for implant change (p < 0.001) was revealed.

CONCLUSION

The importance of implementing artificial intelligence into clinical research could be underpinned by this study, as risk variables can be reclassified based on factors previously considered less or even irrelevant. Thereby we encountered limitations using ML approaches. Further studies will be needed to investigate the association between smoking, BMI and the current implant size with the desire for implant change without any complications. Moreover, we could show that the procedure can be performed safely without high risk of developing major complications.

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.

MAMAS (mastopexy-augmentation made applicable and safer): A standardized template of pre-operative marking and step-by-step surgical procedure

Simultaneous breast augmentation with mastopexy is growing in popularity. It is a complex procedure that can lead to post-operative complications, patient dissatisfaction, and increased risk of litigation. The aim of this study is to describe an approach for the inverted-T augmentation-mastopexy technique, which limits intraoperative modifications, minimizes errors, and decreases post-operative complications and patient dissatisfaction. The study included 107 patients with Regnault's grade I and II ptosis and severe pseudoptosis. All patients were marked according to our novel technique, Mastopexy Augmentation Made Applicable and Safer (MAMAS), and operated by a single surgeon. All patients underwent simultaneous breast augmentation with Siltex Mentor Round Silicone Gel breast implants and mastopexy. Pre-operatively and post-operatively, patients filled the BREAST-Q. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Hundred and seven women received treatment in this study. Sixteen presented with post-operative complications, eleven in the early stage of recovery, and five in the late stage. There were eight cases of minor wound healing complications, all treated conservatively. Two cases of infection were noted, both were treated with oral antibiotics. One patient experienced post-operative bleeding after 13 days, which required surgical revision. In the late stage of recovery, five cases of implant displacement occurred and required revision surgery. No cases of capsular contracture and seromas were reported. According to Breast-Q, all patients were satisfied. MAMAS surgical technique, focusing on precise pre-operative marking for augmentation-mastopexy, is simple and easily reproducible. The procedure has a low complication rate and high patient satisfaction. It provides predictable and stable results over time.

Technical Refinements for Reducing Reoperations in Single-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The goals of mastopexy differ significantly from those of augmentation mammoplasty. Mastopexy is designed to lift and reshape the breasts, while augmentation mammoplasty is designed to increase the volume of the breasts. This conflict causes that one-stage augmentation mastopexies showed a revision rate from 8.7 to 23.2%. The aim of our study is to present some technical refinements for reducing the risk of implant exposure and reoperation.

METHODS

We designed a retrospective matched cohort study, including 216 consecutive patients, undergone augmentation mastopexy between January 2013 and December 2022. We divided them in two groups: Group A undergone an inverted-T superomedial pedicled augmentation mastopexy and Group B undergone our inverted-T modified augmentation mastopexy. The groups were matched for clinical and surgical variables, with the surgical technique the only difference between the two.

RESULTS

Complications were registered in ten patients (9.3%) in Group A (two wound breakdowns at T with implant exposure and eight wound dehiscences), six of which required surgical revision. In contrast, only three patients (2.8%) in Group B reported a complication, which was wound dehiscence without implant exposure in all cases. None of the dehiscence required surgical revision. The difference between complication and revision rates was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Separating the implant and the mastopexy dissection planes reduces the implant exposure and the reoperation rate in one-stage augmentation mastopexy.

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 https://link.springer.com/journal/00266 .

A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The popularity of aesthetic surgery is on the rise, as is patients' expectations towards excellent surgical results. In order to meet these expectations, risk factors that hinder desired outcomes, such as smoking, need to be identified and addressed. To that end, the present study summarizes an updated systematic review focused on the effects of smoking on cosmetic surgical procedures and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of studies comparing aesthetic surgical outcomes by procedure, between tobacco smokers and non-smokers was carried out, querying PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane databases. Data regarding surgical outcomes were extracted and meta-analyzed by a random effects model in conjunction with the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Results: Eighty-two studies were included in the final synthesis. Abdominoplasty/panniculectomy (n = 19 cohorts) and breast reduction (n = 27 cohorts) were the most common types of procedures included in this review. Other than mastopexy and rhinoplasty, smoking conferred a statistically significant increased risk of overall complications for all studied aesthetic procedures. Conclusions: The data demonstrates that smoking is a clear risk factor for the vast majority of aesthetic plastic surgeries studied. Although our meta-analysis suggests that smoking is not a risk factor for complications in mastopexies and rhinoplasties, these two specific analyses may have been biased, and should therefore be re-evaluated with future additional evidence. The results of this systematic review confirm the importance of smoking cessation and education relative to the outcomes of common cosmetic surgical procedures.

Single-Institution Early Experience With a New, Smooth, Opaque, and Round Breast Implant Over a 2-Year Period

Background

The ideal breast implant does not exist and the choice of implant for breast augmentation is largely based on what surgeons think will be best for their patients.

Objectives

To evaluate the preliminary results of a new, smooth, round, and opaque breast implant (PERLE, GC Aesthetics; Dublin, Ireland) from a single-center UK aesthetic practice.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing breast implant surgery with PERLE at the authors' center between January 2021 and December 2022. Outcomes data such as rates of capsular contracture, infection, revision surgery, and synchronous mastopexy were analyzed.

Results

Of the 385 patients identified, 374 (97.1%) had PERLE implants placed by 3 surgeons for primary (n = 290) and secondary breast augmentation (n = 21), and augmentation-mastopexy (n = 63). Capsular contracture occurred in no cases, infection in 1 (0.2%), and revision surgery in 21 patients (5%). The incision used was always submammary, unless a synchronous mastopexy was performed; implants were placed in the subglandular/subfascial plane in the majority of cases (85.3%), and the rest were dual plane (14.7%). Eight revisions were performed in patients undergoing breast augmentation (due to implant displacement in 6 patients, and hematoma and infection in 1 patient each). Fourteen revisions were performed in those undergoing augmentation-mastopexy. The average follow-up time was 18 months.

Conclusions

The authors' early, single-center experience with PERLE implants suggests a safety profile and overall complication rate that is comparable with other modern implants. They will continue to monitor the safety and effectiveness of PERLE and discuss the reasons and evolution in the choice of breast implant.

Level of Evidence 4

Preoperative 3D Measurement-Based Periareolar Augmentation Mastopexy: Indication and "Breast Crown" approach

BACKGROUND

At present, there is no uniform and quantitative indication standard for periareolar augmentation mastopexy. We proposed an indication algorithm and a matched approach to delineate outer circle, in order to optimize the result of this surgery.

METHOD

Five parameters, including both implant and breast characteristics, were incorporated to form an indication algorithm based on 3D-measurement. The indication follows the principle that the circumference of the outer circle should be no more than two times the inner circle. To delineate outer circle, a "crown" was made on the breast. The above approaches were utilized on patients who came for periareolar augmentation mastopexy from October 2015 to January 2019. Data analyzed included BREAST-Q score, areola diameter and the distance of sternal notch to nipple (SNN) preoperative and 1-year postoperative, distance of nipple elevation 1-year postoperative, and complication and revision rates.

RESULTS

A total of 28 breasts (14 patients) were included in this study. BREAST -Q scores 1-year postoperative showed significant increase in satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being and sexual well-being(P=0.000). The mean areolar diameter pre- and post-operative was 6.7±1.2cm and 4.6±0.4cm (P=0.000), and the SNN pre- and post-operative was 22.2±1.9cm and 18.6±1.0cm (P=0.000), with an average nipple elevation of 3.2±1.1cm. The overall complication rate was 7.1% (n=2), both of them were areolar spreading. The overall revision rate was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of the indication and "Breast Crown" approach in reducing complication and revision rates.

Perioperative Safety of Combined Augmentation-Mastopexy: An Evaluation of National Database

INTRODUCTION

The safety of combined augmentation-mastopexy is controversial. This study evaluates a national database to analyze the perioperative safety of combined augmentation-mastopexy to either augmentation or mastopexy alone.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients undergoing augmentation mammaplasty and mastopexy from 2005 to 2018. The patients were divided into the following groups: group I, augmentation; group II, mastopexy; group III, combined augmentation-mastopexy. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared. Outcomes were 30-day complications, reoperation, and readmission.

RESULTS

We found 5868 (74.2%) augmentation only, 1508 (19.1%) mastopexy only and 534 (6.6%) combined augmentation-mastopexy cases. Mean operative time was highest among the combined group at 129 minutes compared with 127 minutes for mastopexy alone and 66 minutes for augmentation alone (P < 0.01). Rates of any complications and readmission were different among groups (0.8% vs 2.5% vs 1.5% respectively, P < 0.01 and 0.7% vs 1.5% vs 1.5% respectively, P = 0.049), whereas reoperation was not statistically different (1.2% vs 1.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.75). The incidence of dehiscence (0.6%; P < 0.01) was highest in the combined group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not reveal an increased odds of complications, reoperation, or readmission with combined augmentation-mastopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

An evaluation of the nationwide cohort suggests that combined augmentation-mastopexy is a safe procedure in the perioperative period.

Finesse in Mastopexy and Augmentation Mastopexy

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe surgical techniques associated with mastopexy and mastopexy augmentation. 2. Understand the evolution of mastopexy and augmentation mastopexy. 3. Address patient goals. 4. Achieve a favorable cosmetic outcome.

SUMMARY

The surgical techniques associated with mastopexy and mastopexy augmentation have continued to evolve. Traditional mastopexy techniques have included periareolar, circumvertical, and inverted-T patterns; however, adjuncts to these have included the use of various surgical mesh materials, implants, and fat grafting. This evidence-based article reviews how the techniques of mastopexy and augmentation mastopexy have evolved to best address patient goals and provide a favorable cosmetic outcome.

Safety of a Protective Funnel in Primary Breast Augmentation: A Retrospective Analysis of 380 Multicenter Cases in the United States

BACKGROUND

Protective funnel devices are commonly used to deliver implants in primary breast augmentation (BA) yet there is a paucity of evidence-based data describing their safety in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of protective funnels in primary BA within the first 30 days postoperatively.

METHODS

This multicenter, Level 3 study retrospectively reviewed the surgical records of 380 consecutive patients (760 breasts) who underwent primary BA by 9 board-certified plastic surgeons using the iNPLANT Funnel (Proximate Concepts LLC, Allendale, NJ) for implant delivery between November 2019 and December 2020. Data were collected pertaining to demographics, implant information, surgery details, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 33 years and 76% of patients had a BMI <25 kg/m2. Of this cohort, 11.4% were smokers, 0.8% had diabetes, and 83% were ASA Class 1. All patients received smooth implants with a median volume of 375 cc. A total of 8 (2.1%) complications were reported, including 3 hematomas (0.79%), 1 seroma (0.26%), and 1 superficial infection (0.26%). No patient required explantation. We identified ASA class, BMI, surgery duration, and implant size as potential risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that the use of protective funnels, such as the iNPLANT Funnel, in primary BA is a safe option when these are utilized according to the manufacturer's Instructions for Use. The use of this device led to a low infection rate (0.26%) and a complication rate of (2.1%) consistent with the average reported in the literature (2%-2.5%).1 Implications for clinical practice are encouraging and future research will include a prospective analysis with a larger case series and potentially a control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

[Impact of breast dimension in one-stage augmentation mastopexies on implant selection: review of 103 consecutive breast augmentations with nanotextured silicone implants]

INTRODUCTION

According to current studies, one-stage augmentation mastopexy (AM) is associated with only minor complications and a lower reoperation rate compared with a staged procedure. In AM, breast dimension can differ notably compared with those cases without simultaneous mastopexy. However, these differences have only been insufficiently investigated. This study aims to quantify the differences and then evaluate the effect of breast dimension on implant selection. In addition, it evaluates the influence of mastopexy on the outcome of augmentation mammoplasties with round nanotextured silicone gel implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a two-year period, all patients with primary augmentation mammoplasties using nanotextured implants were included in the study. Patients' demographic data, breast measurements, specifications of the implants placed, and complications in the breast augmentation group without mastopexy were compared with those of the group with AM. The satisfaction of patients and surgeons was documented using Likert scales.

RESULTS

A total of 206 breast augmentations were performed in n = 103 patients. The mean follow-up was 24.0 ± 4.3 months. Compared with augmentations without an indication for simultaneous mastopexy, the AM group had wider breast bases and larger preoperative cup sizes; p < 0.001. As a result, implants selected for AM had greater diameters and lower volumes (p < 0.05) and were associated with smaller projections; p < 0.001. The total revision rates after augmentations without (n = 51) and with combined mastopexy (n = 52) were 5.9 % and 19.2 % (p < 0.05), respectively. AM increased tissue-related revisions from 2.0 % to 13.4 % (p < 0.05) without having an impact on implant-related revisions (3.9 % vs. 5.8 %, p = 0.663). The overall incidence of capsular contracture was 1.9 %. Satisfaction levels were approximately equal in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to augmentations without mastopexy, wider breast bases and larger breast volumes before surgery lead to the selection of significantly different implant dimensions in AM. Nanotextured silicone implants are associated with low complication rates, while an increased risk for tissue-related revisions of the combined procedure remains. Further studies are necessary in order to evaluate possible advantages and disadvantages over established implants.

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

Background

Numerous augmentation/mastopexy methods have been described in the literature, including those reported in 16 publications in 2019. However, objective measurements of breast dimensions are lacking, leaving little information on which to base treatment selection. The goal is to increase upper pole projection using an implant and correct ptosis by elevating the lower pole with the mastopexy.

Methods

A PubMed search was conducted to identify published augmentation/mastopexy methods. Lateral photographs were matched for size and orientation and then compared using a 2-dimensional measurement system. Measurements were compared for 5 common approaches-vertical; periareolar; inverted-T, central mound; inverted-T, superior pedicle; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle. Four publications not fitting these 5 groups were also evaluated. Measurement parameters included breast projection, upper pole projection, lower pole level, breast mound elevation, nipple level, area, and breast parenchymal ratio.

Results

A total of 106 publications were identified; 32 publications included lateral photographs suitable for comparison. Twenty-eight publications fitting 1 of the 5 groups were compared. All published augmentation/mastopexy methods increased breast projection and upper pole projection, although not significantly for inverted-T methods. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy was the only method that significantly raised the lower pole level (P < 0.05). The vertical technique also significantly (P < 0.01) increased the breast parenchymal ratio. Periareolar; inverted-T, central mound; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle methods produced nonsignificant increments in the breast parenchymal ratio.

Conclusions

Breast implants increase breast projection and upper pole projection. Only vertical augmentation/mastopexy significantly elevates the lower pole. This method also significantly increases the breast parenchymal ratio, achieving the surgical objectives.

Impact of Smoking Status in Free Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

 Several patient-related factors have been identified with regard to the safety and efficacy of breast reconstructions. Using the largest database available in Europe, the presented study investigated the impact of cigarette smoking on deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) free-flap breast reconstructions.

METHODS

 In total, 3,926 female patients underwent 4,577 free DIEP-flap breast reconstructions after malignancies in 22 different German breast cancer centers. The cases were divided into two groups: nonsmokers (NS) and smokers (S). Impact of smoking on surgical complications, controlled for covariates, and cluster effects within the cancer centers were analyzed by using generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

 Overall, there was no significant difference between the groups of patients regarding the rate of total flap loss. However, the rate of partial flap loss (0.9 vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001) and wound-healing disturbances requiring revision surgery (donor site: 1.5 vs. 4.0; recipient site: 1.3 vs. 3.6%, both p < 0.001) was significantly higher in smokers. Multivariable analysis identified smoking to be an independent risk factor for revision surgery (p = 0.001) and partial flap loss (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

 Our findings suggest that successful free tissue transfer can be achieved in smokers despite higher rates of partial flap losses and wound-healing disturbances. However, patients with a history of smoking requiring DIEP flap reconstruction should be critically evaluated preoperatively, informed in detail about the higher risk of complications and encouraged to quit smoking prior to surgery.