The waterfall effect in breast augmentation

When to Consider Prepectoral Implant Conversion After Subpectoral Implant Breast Reconstruction and How to Plan It

Many deformities occur after subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Today, immediate prepectoral reconstruction with implants shows a significant increase in popularity because it has many advantages over subpectoral positioning: absence of muscle deficit and breast animation deformity, reduced implant dislocation, and less postoperative pain and easy recovery. Implant pocket conversion from the submuscular to prepectoral plane has become our preferred strategy for solving most problems related to the submuscular implant position. The authors performed a retrospective review (from June 2018 to December 2022) of patients who underwent prepectoral implant conversion for correction of animation deformity, dysfunctional chronic pain, or to ameliorate poor cosmetic results. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) was utilized in the first 7 cases; in the remaining 56 patients polyurethane-covered implants were placed. Resolution of animation deformity and chronic pain were evaluated, as were cosmetic results and any postoperative complications. Sixty-three patients (87 breasts) underwent prepectoral implant conversion with complete resolution of animation deformity and chronic pain as well as improved cosmetic results. Preventive lipofilling was done in 18 patients. Complication rate included 3 periprosthetic seromas in ADM group. All resolved after ultrasound-guided aspiration. Rippling was noted in 3 patients, and edge visibility was documented in 1 patient. There were no incidences of grade 3 or 4 capsular contracture. The prepectoral implant conversion improves functional and aesthetic results, reaching excellent outcomes. Preparation for this surgery with fat grafting is considered a complementary procedure that increases the indications for prepectoral implant conversion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Six-Year Evaluation of Motiva Round and Ergonomix SmoothSilk Surface Silicone Breast Implants: A Two-Center, Two-Surgeon Outcome Analysis of 1053 Primary and Secondary Breast Augmentations and Augmentation Mastopexy

BACKGROUND

The emerging concerns around breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma and other chronic inflammatory-related conditions have instigated a wider use of smooth devices.

OBJECTIVES

The authors aimed to present 6-year data following the introduction of Motiva implants (Establishment Labs Holdings Inc.; Alajuela, Costa Rica) into their previously texture-dominated practice. Additionally, the authors aimed to provide technical recommendations on how to efficiently incorporate these devices into surgical practice and minimize the learning curve.

METHODS

Data of 1053 primary and secondary breast augmentations conducted between April 2015 and December 2020 in 2 centers (Victoriakliniken in Sweden and the European Institute of Plastic Surgery in Cyprus) were retrospectively evaluated to obtain data on chosen implant characteristics and complications that led to reoperation, prior to and following modifications to surgical practice in 2018.

RESULTS

The data from 6 consecutive years demonstrate a low device-related complication rate with Motiva implants. In 2018, following adaptions in surgical practice, the complication rate significantly declined.

CONCLUSIONS

Motiva implants demonstrate a low complication rate and safety profile for women undergoing primary and secondary breast augmentation procedures. However, to reap the benefits of the antifibrotic profile, technical adaptions and optimal patient planning based on the patient and device characteristics are instrumental. Employing the key principles laid out in this study provides a means for delivering both clinically safe options to patients with aesthetically pleasing long-term results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Pharmacological Approaches for the Prevention of Breast Implant Capsular Contracture

Capsular contracture is a common complication associated with breast implants following reconstructive or aesthetic surgery in which a tight or constricting scar tissue capsule forms around the implant, often distorting the breast shape and resulting in chronic pain. Capsulectomy (involving full removal of the capsule surrounding the implant) and capsulotomy (where the capsule is released and/or partly removed to create more space for the implant) are the most common surgical procedures used to treat capsular contracture. Various structural modifications of the implant device (including use of textured implants, submuscular placement of the implant, and the use of polyurethane-coated implants) and surgical strategies (including pre-operative skin washing and irrigation of the implant pocket with antibiotics) have been and/or are currently used to help reduce the incidence of capsular contracture. In this article, we review the pharmacological approaches-both commonly practiced in the clinic and experimental-reported in the scientific and clinical literature aimed at either preventing or treating capsular contracture, including (i) pre- and post-operative intravenous administration of drug substances, (ii) systemic (usually oral) administration of drugs before and after surgery, (iii) modification of the implant surface with grafted drug substances, (iv) irrigation of the implant or peri-implant tissue with drugs prior to implantation, and (v) incorporation of drugs into the implant shell or filler prior to surgery followed by drug release in situ after implantation.

Polydioxanone Internal Support Matrix: A Rationale for Prophylactic Internal Bra Support in Breast Augmentation

Background

Textured breast implants have been used in aesthetic breast surgery to decrease the rates of implant malposition. A recent analysis of a large-volume single-surgeon experience found statistically similar rates of malposition in smooth vs micro-textured breast implants.

Objectives

Prophylactic use of a polydioxanone (PDO) internal support matrix in breast augmentation was hypothesized to prevent scar malposition and increase pocket control.

Methods

In total, 200 patients received silicone gel primary augmentations performed by a single surgeon from January 2018 to December 2020; 84 patients received smooth implants alone; 49 patients received micro-textured implants; and 67 patients received smooth implants plus PDO internal support matrix. All surgeries were performed in the dual plane using an inframammary incision. Implant-related complications and scar malposition were recorded and compared.

Results

No significant difference in implant-related complication rates was found between shell types (3.57% for smooth devices alone and 2.04% for textured devices [P = 0.62; 95% CI −0.06 to 0.01]). There were zero complications in the smooth plus mesh study arm. A comparison of scar malposition rates between the smooth alone and textured groups revealed no significant difference (15.4% for smooth devices and 8.16% for textured devices [P = 0.23; 95% CI −0.12 to 0.01]). The smooth implant group with the prophylactic placement of PDO mesh had the lowest scar malposition rate of 4.48%, a significant difference compared with the smooth devices alone (P = 0.03; 95% CI −0.21 to −0.01).

Conclusions

Micro-textured devices show a trend toward decreased scar malposition, although not significant. Prophylactic use of PDO internal support matrix in silicone gel breast augmentation is safe and has the lowest incidence of scar malposition.

Level of Evidence: 3

Revision Breast Augmentation

Breast augmentation is consistently one of the most commonly performed aesthetic operations every year. Unfortunately, revision rates following primary augmentation remain as high as 36%. There are several causes for revision breast augmentation; however, the most common and challenging of these include capsular contracture, implant malposition, and ptosis of the aging breast following augmentation. Successful management of these problems requires knowledge on how to best treat the implant and capsule with the corresponding soft tissue simultaneously. While surgical management is important, understanding the pathological causes of these entities during the primary operation can reduce the need for revision. This article utilizes the most up-to-date literature to review the appropriate clinical evaluation and surgical management of these complex cases.

Hepatobiliary complications from ruptured silicone breast implants - a comprehensive literature review

Cronin and Gerow first introduced silicone breast implants in 1962; they now serve as first-line for breast augmentation. Breast augmentation is effective in restoring both physical and psychological well-being in women post-mastectomy.

Many studies in the literature on complications of silicone breast implant rupture focus on lymphomas and capsular contractures. Only a few studies discuss the hepatobiliary complications.

By reviewing the literature over the past 30 years, the authors aim to analyse the clinical presentation, diagnostic findings, as well as management outcomes amongst women with ruptured silicone implant-related hepatobiliary complications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review on this topic.

Breast Augmentation with Microtextured Anatomical Implants in 653 Women: Indications and Risk of Rotation

BACKGROUND

Anatomical implants provide a wide range of options in terms of implant dimensions for breast augmentation. Nevertheless, many surgeons choose not to use anatomical implants due to the risk of rotation malposition and because their advantages over round implants are not clearly defined.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was performed on all women who underwent breast augmentation or implant exchange with microtextured anatomical implants from 2012 to 2019 in a single private clinic. The authors focused on the outcomes of a subgroup of women with glandular ptosis and nipple placement below the inframammary fold who underwent breast augmentation with anatomical implants. Furthermore, the incidence and risk factors for implant rotation were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 653 women underwent primary breast augmentation (n = 529) or implant exchange (n = 124) with anatomical implants. The median follow-up period was 2.7 years (interquartile range, 1.6 to 3.9 years). The incidence of implant rotation was 14 (2.6 percent) in the primary augmentation group and four (3.2 percent) in the implant exchange group. Implant rotation was not associated with type of surgery (p = 0.76), implant projection (p = 0.23), or implant height (p = 0.48). The authors successfully used anatomical implants to elevate the nipple in 92.9 percent of the women with glandular ptosis without using a mastopexy.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results indicate that the rotation risk with microtextured implants is similar to that with macrotextured implants. Furthermore, the authors found that high-projection anatomical implants can be used as an alternative to augmentation-mastopexy in women with glandular ptosis.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

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.

Types of Errors Made During Breast Augmentation with Polyurethane Implants: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Implementation of polyurethane-covered (PU) implants into practice requires a reassessment of the experience and a learning curve period. Occasional publications describe a few difficulties in this regard. However, there are no publications covering the spectrum of errors. The absence of definite information and contradictory findings makes the learning curve longer leading to many unsatisfactory results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The systematization is based on the 12 years of experience with over 1000 patients and previously published data. A literature review was conducted using PUBMED with the following keywords: polyurethane or foam or sponge and breast and implant. A total of 285 articles were found (last accessed 08/13/2019). All articles concerning polyurethane implants were studied along with any articles found describing the surgical techniques applied to them. Additional references found in the above-mentioned articles were also included in the study.

RESULTS

All errors can be divided into planning errors, errors in pocket development and surface-dependent errors, for which the polyurethane surface is the main reason. Surface-dependent errors include the errors connected to positioning and biointegration. The possible causes of late seroma with PU implants are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

The polyurethane surface should not be considered textured in the clinical point of view. Previous experience with non-PU implants cannot be transferred to PU implants. The learning curve is unavoidable. The systematization of errors with PU implants facilitates a decision-making process during the primary and secondary surgery and lowers the risk of the unsatisfactory 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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

The history and development of breast implants

This review discusses the historical development of smooth and textured silicone gel filled implants, and examines the reasoning behind product development and aspects of surgical technique from a surgeon's perspective.

The Posterior Arm Flap for Reshaping the Postbariatric Breast

Postbariatric surgery, either by itself or in association with other procedures, tries to correct physical defects and body deformities. Because of the intrinsic complexity of massive weight loss (MWL) patients, more than a single procedure is, most of the time, required. We report a combined surgical method able to improve arms' and breasts' contour that aims to obtain a satisfying functional and aesthetic result by reducing surgical times and costs.

Methods

A female MWL patient with proper body mass index was clinically evaluated and considered suitable for surgery. While authors performed a modified Pascal-Le Louarn brachioplasty for the upper arm, a standard McKissock mastopexy followed by a Wise pattern skin closure was selected to obtain the breast lift. By sparing the proximal pedicle, the fasciocutaneous flaps were harvested on both posteromedial sides of the arms. The posterior arm flaps (PAF) were tunneled and transposed below the subcutaneous skin bridge across the axilla and finally used to increase the breast mound.

Results

In the immediate postoperative follow-up, no complications were reported. After the 6-month and 1-year follow-up, both arms' silhouette was documented as healthy and symmetric. Breasts were soft, without any signs of ptosis and/or contracture. No skin disorders or scar hypertrophy or lymphedema were reported.

Conclusions

PAF in breast contouring procedures is an interesting surgical option, but more patients need to be treated to validate the effectiveness of the procedure. This technique should be considered when there is a need for simultaneously improving arm's contour and breast's volume and shape.

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 .