Preoperative sizing and breast asymmetry

Betadine-soaked gauzes intraoperative sizing in breast augmentation surgery

In breast augmentation surgery, the correct evaluation of the implant size required is crucial to achieve satisfactory final result. Intraoperative volume decision is usually made by the use of silicone gel breast sizers. Intraoperative sizers have some disadvantages: the progressive loss of structural integrity, the increased risk of cross infection, the high costs. However, during breast augmentation surgery, it is mandatory to fill and expand the newly dissected pocket. In our practice we fill the dissected space with Betadine-soaked and then squeezed gauzes. The use of multiple soaked gauzes as sizers is advantageous for the following reasons: they fill and expand the pocket, they are useful to check the volume and to show the circumferential contour of the breast, to keep the pocket clean while dissecting the second one, to check final hemostasis and to compare the two breasts' size before definitive implant insertion. We simulated an "intra operative setting" where standardized volume Betadine-soaked gauzes were packed into a breast pocket. This easily reproducible and accurate technique is inexpensive and produces reliable and highly satisfactory results; it can be incorporated into the practice of any surgeon performing breast augmentation. Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) level: IV.

Correlation between nipple elevation and breast resection weight: How to preoperatively plan breast reduction

Breast hypertrophy is often associated with functional limitations. Beyond the aesthetic concerns, breast reduction can improve symptoms and self-esteem. In different countries, health-care system regulations have fixed the threshold for reimbursement in 500 g of predicted tissue resection for each breast. Different preoperative measurements have been proposed to predict breast-tissue weight to be removed, showing a variable correlation with post-operative evaluation. We describe a reliable, simple measurement to predict the quantity of breast reduction in grams, which can be applicable to any surgical technique. A total of 128 patients undergoing bilateral breast reduction were evaluated. The correlation between the preoperative nipple-areola complex (NAC) lift distance and the weight of removed breast tissue was tested with linear regression and Pearson's test. Other anthropometric measurements were tested as a control. The ratio between resected grams and lift distance was explored to find a multiplication coefficient to be used at preoperative planning. The mean resection weight was 686.65 g. The mean NAC-lift distance was 7.6 cm. Positive correlation between the NAC-lift distance and the weight of breast tissue removed was found (r: 0.87; p < 0.001). The mean weight of the removed breast tissue (g) per centimetre of NAC lift was 81 g/cm in the group between 6 and 12 cm and 70 g/cm in the group with >12 cm of lift distance. The NAC-lift distance is a single, objective, repeatable measure that can provide a reliable prediction of breast-tissue grams to be removed; it helps in classifying breast-reduction indications.

Dual-plane breast augmentation for minimal ptosis pseudoptosis (the "in-between" patient)

BACKGROUND

Dual-plane breast augmentation (DPBA) can be an effective technique for treating patients with ptotic breasts who fall somewhere in between the traditional requirements for breast augmentation versus a more extensive augmentation-mastopexy.

OBJECTIVES

The author outlines indications for DPBA, describes the technique, and presents outcomes data from patients receiving gel or saline implants in an effort to clarify the advantages of DPBA compared with breast augmentation with or without mastopexy.

METHODS

This 8-year retrospective comparative study reviewed the results of saline implants placed with a DPBA technique in a single surgeon's practice during the final 4 years of the FDA moratorium (phase 1) compared with both gel and saline implants placed during the 4 years after the moratorium was lifted (phase 2). Patients were consecutive. The entire patient cohort (n = 1999 for primary BA; 3998 implants) was assessed for outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the entire cohort, 24.2% were followed for over 1 year; 23.5% of the 256 DPBA patients were followed for over 1 year. Mean (SD) age was 33.6 (8.7) years. The difference in revision rates between BA versus DPBA was 4.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-8.5).

CONCLUSION

The DPBA approach is most likely suited for patients with minimal ptosis who fall into a "gray area" between normal anatomy (treated with a traditional BA) and frank ptosis (which would require mastopexy). Knowledge of this approach will allow surgeons to more effectively treat patients who present with unique "in-between" anatomy not addressed by ordinary BA and avoid more extensive mastopexy scars.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.