Getting the Most Out of Augmentation-Mastopexy

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.

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mastopexy: A l3-year Analysis and Outcome of Primary and Secondary Procedures

Background:

The muscle splitting technique is a submuscular pocket used for augmentation mammoplasty. Its use and results following primary and secondary procedures are presented.

Methods:

A retrospective study that analyzed complication and revision rates following primary and secondary mastopexy with augmentation in a muscle splitting pocket performed between April 2007 and March 2020 was carried out. Data were divided into two groups: primary and secondary single-stage mastopexies with augmentation.

Results:

A total of 169 patients had a primary procedure and 49 had secondary procedures. The mean ages of patients in the primary and secondary were 32.3 ± 9.89 and 38.2 ± 9.63 years, respectively. Five (3.0%) patients had periprosthetic or wound infections in the primary group when compared with 0% in secondary surgery group. Wound breakdown was seen in 13 (7.7%) patients with a primary procedure compared with one patient (2%) with a secondary procedure. One patient had partial nipple loss and another had total nipple loss in the primary group (1.2%) when compared with one patient (2.0%) who had partial nipple loss in the secondary group. Revision surgeries were carried out in 16 (10.1%) of the primary procedures compared with five (10.2%) of the secondary procedures.

Conclusion:

Even though there was a higher prevalence of complications in the primary procedures group than in the secondary procedures group, the overall complications following muscle splitting mastopexy with augmentation are within an acceptable range.

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 .

Split Inferior Pedicle: The 1-Stage Augmentation Mastopexy for Grade 3 Ptosis

In this article, the authors describe the 1-stage surgical technique that has been used by the senior author since 1990 for all his primary grade 2 and grade 3 augmentation-mastopexies. The article provides a safe, simple, and reproducible approach to a challenging procedure, one that tends to be the most litigious in aesthetic breast surgery. The key points of this technique are simple preoperative markings; the augmentation is performed with a true submuscular placement of smooth implants; and the mastopexy is performed with an inferior pedicle technique with unlimited skin flap undermining and no limitation of nipple elevation. Seventy-eight consecutive cases of augmentation mastopexy performed since 1999 by a single surgeon (V.S.) using the same technique were reviewed. The age range was 26-62 years old; the range of implant volume was 150-375 cc; and the follow-up time period was from 1 year to 22 years. After an extensive patient case review, the authors enforce true extended submuscular augmentation (TESMA) as a reliable augmentation technique that can be used as the first procedure in any grades 2 and 3 ptosis, 1-stage augmentation-mastopexies including bariatric cases. The authors believe that the split inferior pedicle for the mastopexy in combination with the TESMA is a breakthrough approach that eliminates the second stage for any augmentation mastopexy procedure. No major complications such as nipple necrosis, implant bottoming, malpositioning, or extrusions were observed. It is a safe, simple, and reproducible procedure.

Level of Evidence 4

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.

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.

Simultaneous Mastopexy via Areola Excision to Correct Mild and Moderate Breast Ptosis

BACKGROUND

Breast ptosis is one of the most common complaints in the clinical setting. Simultaneous mastopexy via areola excision involves a reliable modified aesthetic technique with distinctive features to correct mild and moderate pendulous breasts. The aim of this study is to determine whether the novel surgical approach is a safe and long-lasting technique for patients with breast ptosis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 48 patients who received simultaneous mastopexy through circumareolar excision and followed up for 12 months. Breast size, shape, fullness, symmetry, scar appearance, and sensitivity of nipple-areolar complex were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients were satisfied with upper pole fullness, symmetry and scar less appearance. There were no cases of NAC deformity or sensation loss, neither sever capsular contracture was observed.

CONCLUSION

The new surgical technique, one-stage periareolar augmentation mastopexy, is a reliable and long-lasting operation for patients with mild and moderate breast ptosis.

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.

[Cosmetic Breast Augmentation without Silicone Implants]

Cosmetic Breast Augmentation without Silicone Implants Abstract. Cosmetic breast augmentation procedures without silicone implants are becoming increasingly popular. Mastopexy can be adapted to the needs of the patient and usually result in an at least optical augmentation. Lipofilling is a safe procedure in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery and can help to restore natural appearance, compensate volume deficiencies, and correct asymmetries, that may be congenital or a consequence of prior surgeries. Cosmetic breast augmentation of very small breasts or when aiming at higher breast volumes using lipofilling only are usually combined with procedures for tissue expansion in order to increase the take rate of the injected fat. Hyaluronic acid injections is no valid alternative and are not recommended for cosmetic breast augmentation.

Long-term results measured by BREAST-Q reveal higher patient satisfaction after "autoimplant-mastopexy" than augmentation-mastopexy

Background

The aim of a mastopexy is to raise the breast projection, tighten the skin envelope, and place the nipples in an optimal position in projection to the inframammary fold. This procedure is often combined with prosthetic implants or an autoimplant. Given the current increasing demand for the use of autologous tissue, we evaluated mastopexies combined with either an autoimplant or prosthetic implant in terms of patient satisfaction and long-term results.

Methods

We evaluated 34 patients who underwent a mastopexy with simultaneous breast prosthesis or an autoimplant. During follow-ups we obtained standardized breast measurements, BREAST-Q score, and pre- and postoperative photographs to perform photometric measurements.

Results

BREAST-Q score of patients that underwent autoimplant-mastopexies revealed a higher patient satisfaction with significant differences in satisfaction with breast appearance (69±18 vs. 55±16, P=0.03) and outcome (71±18 vs. 48±26, P=0.009). Regarding breast shape, photometric evaluations presented a significantly different breast shape with higher upper pole fullness in augmentation-mastopexy patients. No statistical significance between long-term results and complication rates could be observed in either patient groups.

Conclusions

The BREAST-Q score implies a higher overall long-term satisfaction in patients that received autoimplant-mastopexy with similar long-term results compared with augmentation-mastopexy. Nevertheless, individual decision-making is necessary and should be based on the degree of ptosis, existing breast volume, previous operations, and patients' preferences regarding postoperative breast shape and projection.