Vertical Scar Mastopexy with a Cat’s Tail Extension for Prevention of Skin Redundancy: An Experience with 17 Consecutive Cases After Mastopexy and Mastopexy with Breast Augmentation

Khan, Umar Daraz

doi:10.1007/s00266-011-9789-6

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Introduction of cat’s tail modification to vertical scars, selection of incision based on preoperative nipple-areolar complex to inframammary crease measurements, limited use of periareolar markings for mastopexy, and finally‚ the use of layered mastopexy with augmentation have all contributed to reduced complication and revision rates and to achieve full potential of mastopexy with augmentation in MSBP. 27 , 28 , 34 , 35 The development of layered mastopexy with augmentation is a journey that started with the use of the MSBP, and further improvement is expected to continue in the future to reduce complication and revision rates. 16 , 27 Layered mastopexy with augmentation showed that the procedure was performed as a day case in 90.2% of patients who underwent layered mastopexy with augmentation compared with 54.3% of patients who underwent nonlayered mastopexy with augmentation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

Khan¹

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Single-stage layered mastopexy with augmentation is a modification of muscle-splitting pocket that reduces risk of complications and revision rate. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all the consecutive cases, performed by a single surgeon, from March 2007 to August 2019, was conducted. All patients had surgery with superomedial pedicle in an approved facility. The patients were divided into group A whose implants were placed through the mastopexy incision, and group B whose implants were placed first and access closed prior to mastopexy. Results: Nonlayered group A included 116 patients and layered group B included 102 patients. Groups A and B had a mean age of 32.3 + 9.70 and 34.8 + 10.39 years (range, 20–66), respectively (P value 0.070). In groups A and B, 95 (81.9%) and 74 (72.5%) patients underwent primary and 21 (18.1%) and 28 (27.5%) patients underwent secondary procedures, respectively (P value 0.099). There were no hematomas in group A and two patients had hematoma in group B (P value 0.218). In group A, one patient experienced periprosthetic infection with none in group B (P value 0.41). Wound breakdown was observed in ten (8.6%) patients in group A and four (3.9%) patients in group B (P value 0.128). In group A, there was a partial or complete nipple loss in two (1.7%) and none in group B (P value 0.412). In group A, 15 (12.9%) underwent revision surgery and six (6.5%) in group B (P value 0.127). Conclusion: Layered mastopexy with augmentation provides improved safety, fewer complications and revisions with adequate results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

Khan¹

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the introduction of the procedure [1,2] , single stage mastopexy with augmentation's overall safety, outcome and complications are compared when the augmentation mammoplasty or mastopexy is performed alone [3][4][5][6][7][8] . Intrinsically singlestage mastopexy with augmentation is a combination of two procedures [9] , the augmentation, in which an implant is placed in any pocket [9][10][11][12][13][14] and the mastopexy, where markings can be selected on the basis of surgeon's experience [5][6][7]16] . The challenging aspect of the surgery is the combination of the two procedures where mastopexy is performed to reduce and tighten the breast skin envelope and breast implant is placed to expand skin envelope and enhance breast cup size, both being diagonally opposite [17] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scar selection for mastopexy can be a surgeon's choice. However, it is not without its impact on the outcome leading to revision surgeries [5,15,16] . There is a lack of information where a technique has been defined for the preservation of the function of breast, the safety of the procedure along with the restoration of normal breast morphometry leading to a predictable aesthetic outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

One-stage mastopexy and augmentation mammoplasty in layers: outcome analysis of first 50 consecutive cases

Khan¹

2018

PAR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The single-stage procedure is a challenging procedure for Plastic Surgeons. The single-stage layered mastopexy with augmentation is a new technique that is aiming to add safety, preserving breast function and to restore normal parameters of breast. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 50 consecutive cases of layered mastopexy with augmentation mammoplasties was performed. All patients had their implants placed in muscle splitting pocket. Incisions for mastopexy were selected on the basis of nipple areolar complex to inframammary crease. Mastopexy is performed using a medially based pedicle, leaving a sufficient tissue covering the implant. Patients were divided into three groups. Group "A" who had periareolar mastopexy, Group "B" had vertical scar mastopexy and Group "C" patients had mastopexy with Wise pattern markings. Results: Group A comprised 11 patients. The mean age was 28.82 ± 7.01 years, mean preoperative and postoperative nipple areolar complex (NAC) to IMC measurement was recorded in 10 patients with the mean of 7.15 ± 1.98 cm and 8.35 ± 1.18 cm respectively. Mean size of the implant used was 379.55 ± 77.18 cm 3. Group B comprised 29 patients. Mean age was 35.17 ± 12.37 years and the mean preoperative and postoperative NAC to IMC crease was 8.53 ± 1.48 cm and 9.72 ± 1.51 cm respectively. The mean implant size used was 289.48 ± 109 cm 3. Group C had 10 patients. Mean age was 39.60 ± 12.15 years and the mean preoperative and postoperative NAC to IMC crease of 10.11 ± 1.24 cm and 8.75 ± 0.98 cm respectively. The mean implant size used was 287.00 ± 55.08 cm 3. Conclusion: The procedure allows better arterial supply, wider area for venous and lymphatic drainage, better sensory innervation to NAC and maximises lactation potential of the breast.

show abstract

“…[5] This method involves splitting the pectoralis major in the line of its fibres to gain access to the submuscular plane as opposed to division of the pectoralis major along the infra-mammary fold [ Figure 4]. The technique has been described for primary [6][7][8][9] and secondary procedures. [10][11][12] The technique not only reduces the dynamic deformity due to absence of muscle release but also has been described to correct dynamic deformity associated with partial sub muscular or dual plane augmentation mammoplasty.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bi-plane breast augmentation: a case series supporting its use and benefits

Stodell¹,

McArthur²,

Mathew³

2016

PAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Breast augmentation has traditionally been performed in either the subglandular or submuscular plane. Dual plane augmentation has been described before and captures the advantages of both of these techniques but reduces the trade-offs. The biplane muscle splitting technique adopts the similar advantages seen with the dual plane method without the need for extensive costal muscle fibre release at the infra-mammary fold. Methods: Thirty-five patients underwent bilateral breast augmentation using the biplanar technique from November 2007 to December 2008. All operations were performed by the senior author and followed up prospectively. Results: Follow up ranged from 9 months to 21 months. All of the patients achieved precise and reliable implant placement with no revisions or patient dissatisfaction. There have been no cases of implant misplacement/migration; synmastia, dynamic breast deformity, capsular contracture or infections. A single case of unilateral haematoma occurred early in the series. Conclusion: Our operative cases and early follow-up supports the use of this novel biplanar technique for breast augmentation. It optimizes the advantages of subglandular and submuscular breast augmentation with simpler dissection and less complications than other submuscular techniques. It can be used in a wide variety of breast types with predictable results.

show abstract

Vertical Scar Mastopexy with a Cat’s Tail Extension for Prevention of Skin Redundancy: An Experience with 17 Consecutive Cases After Mastopexy and Mastopexy with Breast Augmentation

Abstract: The cat's tail marking is a simple modification of the vertical scar mastopexy that eliminated redundant skin in the current series.

Cited by 9 publications

References 18 publications

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

Single-stage Layered versus Nonlayered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Comparative Analysis

One-stage mastopexy and augmentation mammoplasty in layers: outcome analysis of first 50 consecutive cases

Bi-plane breast augmentation: a case series supporting its use and benefits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About