Four-step Augmentation Mastopexy: Lift and Augmentation at Single Time (LAST)

Composite Sling: A Strategy for Enhancing Inferolateral Support in Mastopexy with Implant

Augmentation mastopexy has attracted the attention of numerous authors seeking to improve surgical outcomes and ensure breast implant stability. The utilization of the dual plane technique with a lateral sling, pioneered by Ono and Karner, has demonstrated effectiveness in providing long-term implant support. However, challenges arise in cases of anatomical variations, such as a short pectoralis major (PM) muscle or chest, necessitating alternative approaches like the composite sling. This study presents a technique designed to elongate and broaden the lateral sling to enhance implant support. The composite sling incorporates components from the abdominal part of the PM muscle, the aponeurotic/muscular part of the external oblique muscle, and the cranial part of the rectus abdominis. Procedures were performed on 29 patients using the composite sling technique from July 2022 to October 2023. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 18 months (average of 11.89 months). The lateral sling approach was successfully extended to cases with a short PM muscle or chest, previously managed using the dual plane technique without inferolateral support. No increase in complications or implant displacements was observed compared with the original lateral sling approach. However, four reoperations addressed issues such as dog ears, scarring, and minor asymmetries. Consistent results were observed throughout the follow-up period, particularly in maintaining upper pole fullness and preventing lower pole ptosis. The composite sling approach provides a viable solution for cases where the original sling technique is impractical. Its implementation could broaden surgical options and optimize results, particularly in cases of unfavorable anatomy.

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.

Safe Augmentation Mastopexy: Review of 500 Consecutive Cases Using a Vertical Approach and Muscular Sling

Background

Augmentation mastopexy remains a challenging surgery and has been frequently associated with suboptimal outcomes and remarkable reoperation rates, and one of the greatest challenges in mastopexy surgery is areolar lift, especially when implants are simultaneously used. Through the authors' experience, this study is aimed to show a modification of the vertical approach with greater safety of the areolar pedicle.

Methods

The study included all patients who underwent augmentation mastopexy surgery performed by the authors between 2019 and 2022, whether primary or nonprimary, and performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent this procedure.

Results

The length of the areolar lift ranged from 0 cm to 14 cm. Among the 17.4% of nonprimary mastopexies, the longest areolar lift was 11 cm. No cases of nipple-areola complex ischemia/necrosis were observed. With this technique, there were 6.2% complications (n = 31), none of which were considered serious.

Conclusions

This surgical sequence is a safe option for areolar lift in augmentation mastopexy. The vertical approach also has the advantage of producing considerably shorter horizontal scars. It is also reproducible, keeping the implant stable, which results in consistent long-term results.

Augmentation Mastopexy-An Algorithm to Demystify Surgical Planning

As individual procedures breast augmentation and mastopexy are relatively simple and low-risk procedures. Simply, breast augmentation comprises of placing an implant under breast tissue or a combination or breast tissue and muscle (Spear and Giese in Aesth Surg J 20(2):155-164, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2000.106474 ). Mastopexy involves reshaping the breast and commonly raising the nipple1. Complications in the individual procedures are relatively low and generally reported as capsular contracture in breast augmentation or minor wound break down in mastopexy (Spear and Giese 2020). When combined as an augmentation mastopexy everything changes. Augmentation mastopexy is one of the most difficult challenges faced in plastic surgery2. We describe an easy-to-follow algorithm to assist the surgeon in their operative decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Versatility of the Lateral-based Mammary Flap as an "Auto-implant" for Enhancing Breast Mound for Patients Undergoing Primary Mastopexy

Background

The demand for augmentation-mastopexy surgery without using implants has significantly increased over the years. Fat transfer offers an alternative method, but some patients do not favor this procedure either. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the versatility of using a lateral-based mammary flap as an "auto-implant" for enhancing the breast mound for patients undergoing primary mastopexy.

Method

This retrospective study was performed between February 2016 and April 2019, including 36 female patients (72 breasts). Our technique involves using the inferior breast tissue by elevating the lateral-based dermoglandular flap that was moved cranially with a 90 degree rotation in a conical shape within the created pocket to refill the superior and central mound.

Result

The mean nipple projection was 11.2 after 36 months postoperative compared with 5.2 before surgery. The mean ± SD of pre- and postoperative measurements for the lower pole zone were 80.2 ± 10.5 and 50.1 ± 6.4, and those for the upper pole zone were 40.3 ± 9.5 and 63.9 ± 6.5, respectively. The distance of breast mound elevation after the surgical procedure ranged from 5.30 to 9.55 cm, with a mean of 7.90 cm.

Conclusions

The lateral-based mammary flap acts like an implant that helps shape and augment the breast, enhances the mammary projection, and restores the breast contour without requiring a synthetic implant or fat grafting. It is a reliable technique with high patient satisfaction but is unsuitable for patients with insufficient breast volume.

Advances in surface modifications of the silicone breast implant and impact on its biocompatibility and biointegration

Silicone breast implants are commonly used for cosmetic and oncologic surgical indications owing to their inertness and being nontoxic. However, complications including capsular contracture and anaplastic large cell lymphoma have been associated with certain breast implant surfaces over time. Novel implant surfaces and modifications of existing ones can directly impact cell-surface interactions and enhance biocompatibility and integration. The extent of foreign body response induced by breast implants influence implant success and integration into the body. This review highlights recent advances in breast implant surface technologies including modifications of implant surface topography and chemistry and effects on protein adsorption, and cell adhesion. A comprehensive online literature search was performed for relevant articles using the following keywords silicone breast implants, foreign body response, cell adhesion, protein adsorption, and cell-surface interaction. Properties of silicone breast implants impacting cell-material interactions including surface roughness, wettability, and stiffness, are discussed. Recent studies highlighting both silicone implant surface activation strategies and modifications to enhance biocompatibility in order to prevent capsular contracture formation and development of anaplastic large cell lymphoma are presented. Overall, breast implant surface modifications are being extensively investigated in order to improve implant biocompatibility to cater for increased demand for both cosmetic and oncologic surgeries.

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.

Subglandular-to-Subpectoral Conversion with Mastopexy: The Four-Step Approach

Background:

Because of the multiplying number of patients undergoing breast augmentation, nonprimary augmentation mastopexy will be increasingly requested in the future; this operation represents an even more significant challenge than primary augmentation mastopexy. The authors describe a standardized approach for subglandular-to-subpectoral implant pocket conversion in mastopexy that provides a tight neopocket with inferolateral muscular support, which minimizes implant displacement complications and allows operative strategies to reduce the risk of bacterial load on implants.

Methods:

The authors’ technique proposes the following: (1) modified subpectoral pocket, with muscular inferolateral support for the implant; (2) independent approaches to the submuscular pocket and subglandular (preexisting) pocket; and (3) preestablished four-step surgical sequence. The authors collected data from their private practices for 46 patients who underwent the technique from March of 2017 to April of 2020. Patient perception about aesthetic outcomes, photographs from multiple postoperative follow-ups, and surgical complications/reoperation rates were analyzed.

Results:

Overall results were positive; 89.1 percent of patients reported satisfaction with their aesthetic outcomes. No major complications occurred. The total revision rate was 15.2 percent, but only 2.1 percent in the last year, as the learning curve progressed.

Conclusions:

Secondary augmentation mastopexy is a complicated procedure. The four-step sequence approach is one reliable option for subglandular-to-subpectoral pocket conversion, once it produced high levels of patient satisfaction while producing low complication rates. Other surgeons’ experiences with the technique and further studies are necessary to validate these findings.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Therapeutic, IV.

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 .

The "Shirt Pocket" Technique-An Alternative for Augmentation-Mastopexy

Augmentation-mastopexy is a frequent procedure with high rates of early recurrence of breast ptosis, mainly after subglandular approach. The dual-plane techniques, based on the cranial dissection of the pectoralis, is the most used, but this plane does not cover the inferior pole of the breast. Then, the possibility of a downward dissection of the muscle seems to be more reasonable to retain the implant and improve postoperative results. This study aimed to review the anatomy of the pectoralis in cadavers and the use of its downward dissection to create a pocket for breast implant as a "shirt pocket." This maneuver was associated with a superior-based dermoglandular flap to overprotect the inferior pole. No complications were related in the postoperative period. The anatomic review showed that the "shirt pocket" is a safe option if done carefully. The technique demonstrated to be feasible and seemed to be effective, being another alternative to prevent early recurrence of breast ptosis in these procedures.

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.

Double Space Augmentation Mastopexy-A Reflection After 15 Years

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of breast ptosis using mastopexy associated with the inclusion of a silicone prosthesis in a single surgical procedure is a challenge for surgeons. The aim of this study is to describe the 15-year experience with the placement of silicone breast implants in double, subfascial and submuscular space, in the treatment of patients with breast ptosis, and to analyze the aesthetic results of patients who underwent such surgeries.

METHOD

During the 15-year period, between 2005 and 2020, 640 mastopexies were performed with the inclusion of silicone breast implants in double space, with high-profile round polyurethane prostheses whose volumes ranged from 135 to 435 ml, in patients with grade 2 and 3 breast ptosis.

RESULTS

The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 55 years and the average age was 34 years. The postoperative follow-up time was 18 months. 400 patients (62.5%) had grade II ptosis, whereas 240 of them (37.5%) had grade III ptosis. The main complications were: 19 cases (3%) of residual sagging skin, 19 cases (3%) of unsightly scars, 12 cases (2%) of partial areola necrosis. There was no case of infection or seroma. There were 330 primary surgeries (52%) and 310 secondary surgeries (48%).

CONCLUSION

After 15 years of performing mastopexy with prosthesis in double space, both in primary and secondary surgeries, it can be concluded that the technique reached its maturity providing good long-term results with the maintenance of the projection of the upper pole of the breast and low recurrence of ptosis in the lower pole and low rate of 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.

Breast Lift with and without Implant: A Synopsis and Primer for the Plastic Surgeon

Breast ptosis is a common occurrence following weight loss, pregnancy, and breastfeeding, or as a consequence of normal aging. This results in loss of a youthful shape and contour of the breast, with a change in the position of the nipple–areolar complex. Mastopexy can restore this youthful appearance and transpose the nipple–areolar complex to a more aesthetic position on the breast. Various techniques exist that address the skin and parenchyma of the breast and are chosen based on the degree of ptosis and skin laxity, as well as the patient’s goals. These techniques all differ in scar burden and risk profile. Additionally, this can be done simultaneously or in a staged manner. In this literature review, we aim to provide an overview of mastopexy procedures, with and without augmentation. Further, we aim to detail recent advancements in technical approaches, and delineate common complications in certain patient demographics. To this end, we performed a literature search with a medical librarian, using PubMed/Medline to identify pertinent literature. In the context of the review, we discuss important considerations in patient selection and counseling to set expectations and ultimately, optimize surgical outcome and patient satisfaction.

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.