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

Grünherz, Lisanne; Burger, Anna; Giovanoli, Pietro; Lindenblatt, Nicole

doi:10.21037/gs.2019.09.05

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 102 – 104 Publications that did not include lateral images of augmentation/mastopexy 1 – 7 , 14 , 46 – 93 , 100 and publications with overly cropped photographs 93 – 96 were also excluded, leaving 32 studies with suitable photographs for evaluation. 8 – 13 , 15 , 16 , 22 – 45 Four studies 16 , 22 , 26 , 45 used methods that did not fit into 1 of the 5 groups and were therefore excluded from comparisons.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were no significant differences in mean age, follow-up time, or implant volume between groups (Table 1 ). Among the 32 studies with photographs that were available for analysis, the implant pocket was subpectoral (or dual plane) in 28 publications (87.5%), 9 – 13 , 15 , 16 , 22 – 29 , 31 – 40 , 43 – 45 and subglandular in 3 studies (9.4%). 8 , 30 , 42 The pocket location was not described in 1 study (3.1%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When possible, publications with suitable photographs for measurements 8 – 13 , 15 , 16 , 22 – 45 were categorized into 5 groups: vertical 13 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 40 , 44 ; periareolar 8 , 23 – 25 , 28 , 30 , 39 ; inverted-T, central mound 9 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 34 , 36 , 41 , 43 ; inverted-T, superior or superomedial pedicle 11 , 32 , 42 ; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle. 27 , 35 , 37 , 38 An “all procedures” group was included (Tables 1 and 2 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

Swanson

2020

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

Swanson

2020

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) program for Windows (Standard version 24). The calculated sample size of the study was 12 participants for each group at 5% level of significance and 80% power, using the following formula: N = (Z1-α/2+Z1-β) 2 σ1* σ 2 / δ 2 , Z1-α/2 =1.96, Z1-β = 0.842, σ = SD [12]. The normality of data was first tested with one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding mastopexy combined with autoaugmentation, the literature is relatively heterogeneous due to different surgical procedures and outcome definitions [12]. In this study, breast ptosis was corrected using mastopexy autoaugmentation using the superomedial NAC pedicle and lower pole dermoglandular flap or implant to improve upper pole fullness and enhance breast projection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower Pole Dermoglandular Flap Autoaugmentation versus Mastopexy Augmentation with Subpectoral Implants: Outcomes after Reshaping of Ptotic Breasts

Elmekkawy¹,

Abdelbaki²,

El-Din³

et al. 2021

The Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Single stage augmentation mastopexy is a challenging procedure for both volume expansion and skin envelope reduction. Also, the patient experience is an important issue after mastopexy as it affects the patient physical functioning, psychosocial wellbeing, and the aesthetic result.Aim: To assess the outcomes of reshaping of a ptotic breast and its impact on the quality of life.Patients and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted over a 2-year period in 32 female patients with different degrees of breast ptosis. Patients were divided into two groups according to their desire to increase breast volume either using or not using an implant. Standard breast measurements as well as early and late complications were recorded, and patient satisfaction was assessed using the BREAST-Q.Results: Postoperatively, both the groups showed significant improvements in ptosis and in the BREAST-Q scores compared to pre-operative scores in all domains (p≤0.001). However, regarding post-operative satisfaction with breast volume, psychosocial wellbeing, and outcomes, the autoaugmentation group showed a significantly higher BREAST-Q score compared with the implant augmentation group (p≤0.05). Conclusion:The BREAST-Q provides significant clinical information and evaluates the influence of the surgical procedure on the patient's regular life activities. Mastopexy autoaugmentation using the lower pole dermoglandular flap is a reliable technique for enhancing the projection of the breast, improving the upper pole shape, and creating an adequate breast volume with a low complication rate and high patient satisfaction.

show abstract

A Modified Superior Pedicle Mastopexy Technique With an Inferolateral-Based Auto Augmentation Flap

Yilmaz

2021

Aesth Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

Lower Pole Dermoglandular Flap Autoaugmentation versus Mastopexy Augmentation with Subpectoral Implants: Outcomes after Reshaping of Ptotic Breasts

A Modified Superior Pedicle Mastopexy Technique With an Inferolateral-Based Auto Augmentation Flap

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About