Secondary augmentation-mastopexy: indications, preferred practices, and the treatment of complications

Preventing Soft Tissue Complications in Secondary Aesthetic Breast Surgery Using Indocyanin Green Angiography

BACKGROUND

Secondary cosmetic breast surgery after primary augmentation with implant can be associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Partial/complete nipple areolar complex (NAC) necrosis is particularly feared. In this preliminary study, the authors propose the use of Indocyanine Green (ICG) angiography in order to assess the blood supply of breast tissue after implant removal.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective is to prevent skin and gland necrosis in revision breast surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of 33 patients undergoing secondary breast surgery between 2018 and 2021 by a single surgeon (M.S.). Breast tissue perfusion was assessed in 16 patients by intraoperative ICG-angiography at the end of implant removal and possible capsulectomy. Non-stained/non-fluorescent areas were judged to be low perfusion areas and were excised with short scar mastopexy.

RESULTS

In the ICG-angiography group, 7 patients (44%) showed an area of poor perfusion along the inferior pole, all of these patients underwent subglandular breast augmentation. Resection of the poor perfusion areas allowed an uneventful postoperative course. In the non ICG-angiography group (17 patients), 5 patients experienced vertical scar dehiscence/necrosis. We found a statistically significant association between non-ICG angiography group and vertical scar dehiscence/necrosis, and also between vertical scar dehiscence/necrosis and subglandular implant placement (P-value = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Safer secondary surgery can be offered to patients undergoing secondary aesthetic breast procedures, especially when the first augmentation surgery is unknown e.g. implant plane, type of pedicle used, the implant is large and subglandular, and capsulectomy is performed.

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.

Layered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Modification for Lower Pole Safety and Stability

BACKGROUND

Single-stage mastopexy with augmentation is a commonly performed procedure. The single-stage procedure can be performed in primary cases or a secondary procedure in patients with previous history of augmentation, mastopexy or mastopexy with augmentation. The procedure is challenging and not without its risks.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all consecutive cases of layered mastopexy with augmentation mammoplasties, carried out from September 2015 to August 2019, was performed. All patients had their implants placed in muscle splitting pocket first and access for the pocket was closed prior to the commencement of mastopexy.

RESULTS

During the period of 4 years, 102 consecutive layered mastopexy with augmentations were performed in muscle splitting plane. Of these 102 patients, 74 (72.5%) patients had it as a primary and 28 (27.5%) as a secondary procedure. Of these 102 patients, 53 (52.0%) had textured, 37 (36.3%) had smooth and 12 (11.8%) had microtextured implants and 72 (70.6%) patients had high profile and 30 (29.4%) had medium profile implants. Same size implant was used in 89 patients with a mean of 298 cc, and 13 patients had different size implants with a mean of 362 cc on the right and 395 cc on the left. In current study, bilateral periareolar, vertical scar cat's tail and Wise pattern mastopexies were performed in 11, 51 and 27 patients, respectively. Of the 102 patients, 5 had unilateral right periareolar, 5 unilateral right vertical scar cat's tail, 2 unilateral left periareolar and 1 patient had a combination of periareolar and vertical scar combination. There was no nipple loss or periprosthetic infection. There was a minor wound breakdown seen in 4 (3.9%), haematoma in 2 (2.1%), nipple sensation loss in 2 (2.1%) and 12 (11.8%) had layered mastopexy as a part of a combined procedure. Revision was performed in 6 (6.5%), drains were used in 14 (13.7%), and 92 (90.2%) had the procedure performed as a day case.

CONCLUSION

Layered mastopexy with augmentation is a safe procedure with added stability and safety to lower pole of the breast as well as nipple-areolar complex.

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 .

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.

The Dual Vascular Pedicle: A Novel Method to Approach Challenging Cases in Single-Stage Mastopexy/Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Age, pregnancy and weight change can affect the shape of the female breast. Various mastopexy/augmentation techniques have been described to address these changes which work well in primary and uncomplicated cases. However, there is a distinctive category of high-risk patients which includes post-bariatric, active smokers, those with poor skin quality, wanting larger implants or undergoing secondary surgery. The complications reported in this group of patients are as high as 32%.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe a new technique of one-stage mastopexy/augmentation, using a wide dermo-glandular pedicle, and our early results with 51 consecutive patients.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were operated between January 2016 and September 2018, with a mean age of 40.0 years. Ten patients were smokers, eight were post-massive weight loss, six had previous mastopexy. At a mean follow-up of 22 months, only two patients had a unilateral bottoming out. There were no incidents of hematoma, seroma, capsular contracture or major tissue-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Plastic surgery has been described as a struggle between beauty and blood supply. We have performed a one-stage mastopexy/augmentation using a wide and thick dermo-glandular glandular pedicle to maximize the blood supply in a range of challenging patients with promising results.

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 .

Revisional Breast Surgery: Are Surgical Plans Changed if the Patient Has a Textured Device?

SUMMARY

The authors reviewed the available evidence on revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery with the aim of investigating whether any difference in the surgical approach should be proposed if the patient has a textured device. They included in their review 31 studies presenting different approaches for revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery (both aesthetic and reconstructive), with a level of evidence ranging from 4 to 5. None of the included studies proposed different surgical approaches for revision surgery in patients carrying textured devices. The authors conclude that no different surgical attitudes in revision surgery following implant-based breast surgery should be adopted if the patient has a textured device according to the available evidence, when a correct approach is performed to face the complication or adverse event, following a thorough preoperative study of the patient with the proper diagnostic tools.

Elective Implant Removal and Replacement in Asymptomatic Aesthetic Patients with Textured Devices

SUMMARY

The management of patients with breast implants requires secondary procedures through the life of the implant, sometimes in the early postoperative period and more commonly many years after the initial surgery. In performing revisional procedures, removal and replacement of the implants is often required for a variety of reasons. With growing concerns of implant safety, implant exchange or removal with or without a capsulectomy has been increasingly requested by patients. In particular, textured breast implants have been under increased scrutiny secondary to their association with breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Unfortunately, to date, there are no data and very little guidance as to the appropriate management of patients currently with textured implants as well as patients with a history of having had textured implants placed in the past. The surgeon must not only consider the appropriate management of patients with uncomplicated, asymptomatic textured devices but also consider the appropriate management when faced with another indication for revisional surgery and the need determine the appropriate course of action. An algorithm for the management of the explantation patient in general will be introduced in this review with a focus on the rationale, planning, and management of patients with an uncomplicated, asymptomatic textured 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.

Prospective Study of Saline versus Silicone Gel Implants for Subpectoral Breast Augmentation

Background

Silicone gel implants are regarded as esthetically superior to saline implants, offering a more natural consistency. They are also considered less susceptible to rippling. However, objective measurements and patient-reported outcome studies are lacking. Similarly, minimal data are available quantitating animation deformity.

Methods

A 3-year prospective study was undertaken among 223 women undergoing primary subpectoral breast augmentation using either saline (n = 145) or silicone gel (n = 78) implants. Photographs obtained included frontal views with the patient flexing the pectoral muscles. Images were matched, and vertical differences in nipple position were measured. Breast implants were evaluated using high-resolution ultrasound to detect any ripples or folds at least 3 months after surgery. Outcome surveys were administered. Statistical analysis included the χ² test, point-biserial correlations, and a power analysis.

Results

Respondents reported visible rippling in 18% of women and palpable rippling in 32% of patients, with no significant difference between women treated with saline and silicone gel implants. Ripples were detected on ultrasound scans in 24% of women with saline implants and in 27% of women with silicone gel implants (difference not significant). Ripples were more common in women with lower body mass indices. Fifty percent of patients demonstrated nipple displacement <1 cm on animation. Nipple displacement occurred either up or down with equal frequency and a mean overall nipple displacement of zero.

Conclusions

Saline and silicone breast implants produce similar degrees of rippling, as determined on outcome surveys and ultrasound examination. Animation deformities tend to be minor and well-tolerated.

Muscle-Splitting Augmentation-Mastopexy: Implant Protection With an Inferior Dermoglandular Flap

Simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy can achieve excellent patient and surgeon satisfaction but continues to pose a challenge, with revision rates of up to 25%. Recurrent ptosis and poor overall breast shape are 2 common reasons for reoperation, whereas some of the most feared complications is breast implant exposure, infection, and loss secondary to wound breakdown; excessively large implants or too much tension during closure are possible contributing factors. We describe a technique for augmentation-mastopexy combining a muscle-splitting pocket for implant placement along with an inferior flap, which helps secure the implant in place and provides coverage in case of wound dehiscence. A retrospective chart review was performed (January 2015 to December 2017) of women who underwent augmentation-mastopexy with round, textured silicone gel implants using a muscle-splitting technique combined with an inferior de-epithelialized dermoglandular flap. A total of 118 patients (236 breasts) were operated on. Mean follow-up was 13 months (10-42 months). Mean patient age was 33.3 years (24-55 years). Mean operative time was 102.9 minutes (80-135 minutes), and implant size ranged from 175 to 350 mL (mode, 275 mL). There were no cases of implant extrusion, nipple-areola complex ischemia, or surgical site infection; however, 1 patient required revision surgery for implant malposition, and 2 had a postoperative hematoma. In summary, the technique we describe combines 2 established mammaplasty techniques, ensuring upper pole fullness with good cleavage, implant protection in case of wound breakdown, and good patient satisfaction as evidenced by a low revision rate and minimal complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, therapeutic. Evidence obtained from multiple time series with or without the intervention, such as case studies.

[Mastopexy]

Mastopexy is one of the most popular cosmetic surgery procedures. Complications are rare but imperfections in results can occur. The main imperfections affect the nipple-areolar complex, the volume of the segment II, the progression of the segment III as well as the cicatrization. We will consider the different techniques to prevent or treat them in case of occurrence.

Reverse-Muscle Sling Reduces Complications in Revisional Mastopexy-Augmentation

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy is a particularly tricky operation with a considerable reoperation rate. The pectoralis muscle sling has proven to be a suitable alternative technique for long-term results in breast parenchyma suspension without silicone implants. This study aims to propose a promising approach to simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy revisional surgery using an inverted dual-plane technique acting as a muscular sling.

METHODS

A 10-year historic cohort was conducted to obtain the following variables from our preexisting database: age, preoperative measurements, operative technicalities, implant details, time from procedure to revision, complications, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients assessed after the initial postoperative year were analyzed. Review of this series of patients revealed a revision rate of 3.8% and overall rate of morbidity of 11.5%.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy using an inverted dual-plane technique acting as a muscular sling is a reliable and safe procedure. Review of this series of patients revealed low rates of morbidity and reoperation need.

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 .

Revision Buttock Implantation: Indications, Procedures, and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Buttock implant studies have focused largely on safety, efficacy, and complication rates of primary surgery. The revision buttock implant surgical experience has to date not been published.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to collect data from patients who underwent revision buttock implantation surgery performed by the author over a 12-year period from June of 2003 through December of 2015. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patient for whom an implant was either removed and replaced, exchanged, or repositioned after prior buttock implant surgery. The indications, types of procedures, and results of revision buttock implantation surgery based on the author's experience are described.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients (32 women and 11 men) underwent revision buttock implantation surgery. Indications included replacement after removal (n = 18), asymmetry (n = 16), and size change (n = 9). Revision buttock implantation procedures included implant removal (n = 24), implant replacement (n = 19), implant exchange (n = 18), capsulotomy (n = 6), site change (n = 5), and capsulorrhaphy (n = 1). The overall complication rate was 17.8 percent. Complications were highest after unilateral implant replacement (n = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision buttock implantation is often necessary to correct or improve the results of primary buttock augmentation. Implants should be removed as soon as diagnosed in case of infection to reduce additional complications and permit successful reimplantation. Surgeons performing buttock implant surgery should be aware of the common indications, surgical procedures, and complications associated with revision buttock implantation surgery.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

All Seasons Vertical Augmentation Mastopexy: A Simple Algorithm, Clinical Experience, and Patient-reported Outcomes

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

The safety of augmentation mastopexy has been questioned. Staging has been recommended for women deemed to be at higher risk, such as women with greater degrees of ptosis. Most existing studies evaluate women treated with multiple methods, including the traditional Wise pattern. This retrospective study specifically evaluates vertical augmentation mastopexy. A simple algorithm is introduced.

Methods:

From 2002 to 2016, 252 women underwent consecutive vertical augmentation mastopexies performed by the author, with no staged surgery. All patients underwent a vertical mastopexy using a medially based pedicle and intraoperative nipple siting. A subset of women treated from 2012 to 2016 were surveyed to obtain outcome data; 90 patients (inclusion rate, 90%) participated.

Results:

The complication rate was 32.9%, including persistent ptosis, delayed wound healing, scar deformities, and asymmetry. There were no cases of nipple loss. An increased risk of complications was detected for smokers (P < 0.01), but not for combined procedures, secondary breast augmentations, or secondary mastopexies. The revision rate was 15.5%. Persistent nipple numbness was reported by 13.3% of respondents. Eighty percent of women were self-conscious about their breast appearance before surgery; 22% of respondents were self-conscious about their breasts after surgery. Seventy percent of respondents reported an improved quality of life, 94.4% would repeat the surgery, and 95.6% would recommend it.

Conclusions:

A simple algorithm may be used to guide treatment in women who desire correction of ptosis and upper pole fullness. An "all seasons" vertical augmentation mastopexy is safe and widely applicable. Staging is unnecessary.