Volumetric Evaluation of the Mammary Gland and Pectoralis Major Muscle following Subglandular and Submuscular Breast Augmentation

Roxo, Ana Cláudia Weck; Nahas, Fábio Xerfan; Salin, Renan; Castro, Cláudio Cardoso de; Aboudib, José Horácio; Marques, Ruy Garcia

doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000001874

Cited by 35 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the resection weight was ≥ 300 g for at least 1 breast, the operation was labeled a breast reduction. 15 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 – 12 Three-dimensional systems and magnetic resonance imaging have also been used. 13 – 15 However, these studies have not evaluated long-term results. Most publications include patients with a mean follow-up time of approximately 1 year or less.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most publications include patients with a mean follow-up time of approximately 1 year or less. 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 – 15 Reus and Mathes 1 measured surface distances an average of 4.7 years (range, 2.3–7.5 years) after reduction mammaplasties. Bouwer et al 16 studied patients 10 years after breast reductions but used a subjective scoring method; there were no measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Photometric Evaluation of Long-term Changes in Breast Shape after Breast Augmentation and Vertical Mammaplasty

Swanson¹

2018

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Little information is presently available regarding the long-term effects of breast augmentation and mammaplasties on breast shape. Existing studies typically use 1-dimensional measurements and mean follow-up times seldom exceed 1 year.Methods:Twenty women were studied: breast augmentation (n = 5), mastopexy (n = 5), augmentation/mastopexy (n = 5), and breast reduction (n = 5). For mammaplasties, a vertical method using a medial pedicle and intraoperative nipple siting was used in all cases. A 2-dimensional measurement system was used, with computer-assisted matching of lateral photographs of the right and left breasts. Measurements were evaluated at 3 times: before surgery, 1 year after surgery, and 10 years after surgery.Results:Breast implants significantly increased breast projection and upper pole projection. The nipple level was unchanged. The lower pole level dropped. These changes were preserved at 10 years. Vertical mastopexy provided a modest increment in breast projection and upper pole projection. The nipple level and lower pole level were raised significantly. Augmentation/mastopexy boosted breast projection and upper pole projection, and also elevated the nipple and lower pole level. Breast reduction changes were similar to mastopexy, but with greater elevation of nipple level and lower pole level, which were usually lower to start with. Implants increased upper pole convexity. Nipple overelevation was avoided by intraoperative nipple siting just below the breast apex.Conclusions:These measurements provide new information regarding the long-term effects of breast augmentation and vertical mammaplasties. This information may be used by plastic surgeons in procedure selection and patient counseling.

show abstract

“…If the resection weight was ≥ 300 g for at least 1 breast, the operation was labeled a breast reduction. 15 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Photometric Evaluation of Long-term Changes in Breast Shape after Breast Augmentation and Vertical Mammaplasty

Swanson¹

2018

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Breast implant removal due to capsular contracture, pain, asymmetry, safety concerns, rupture, or extrusion usually leaves atrophied breast tissues. 14 Many patients who suffered from prosthesis complications would prefer a natural substitute to restore breast volume. Implant-to-fat conversion provides a good solution for those patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant to Fat: A Breast Augmentation Technique Validated by BREAST-Q

Tahseen

Fayek

Emara

et al. 2020

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas there is no definite agreement about the definitive pocket, surgeons advocate satisfactory results according to each own's practice. Generally, submuscular pocket allows a lower grade of contracture and a better implant concealing, but runs higher risk of animation, cephalic, and/or lateral displacement and waterfall effect in the long term [13].…”

Section: Subglandular/subfascial Vs Submuscular Placementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid mastopexy: improving outcomes on implant-based augmentation mastopexy with fat

Cuccia

Gagliardo

Romeo³

et al. 2021

Eur J Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Autologous fat transplantation for breast augmentation represents an increasingly interesting technique in plastic surgery. Only a few standardized procedures are available. Hybrid augmentation mastopexy combines the benefits of autologous fat transplantation and implant-based breast augmentation mastopexy, reducing implant-related complications and prothesis size. Herein, we describe our surgical approach as a “hybrid aesthetic surgery.” Methods A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent hybrid breast augmentation and lifting with simultaneous fat grafting was carried out. Clinical outcomes, ultrasound evaluation of upper pole fullness, aesthetic postoperative results, and complications were examined. Results Eighteen patients with a mean age of 33 years (range: 24–52 years) and mean BMI of 25.8 kg/m2 (range: 21.4–32.1 kg/m2) were included in this study. Mean injected fat volume per breast was 115 cc (range: 78–144 cc). Patients were followed up for a mean of 9.4 months (range: 6–24 months). No fat necrosis or major complications were encountered during the follow-up. Patient satisfaction was high in terms of breast shape, size, and coverage of the breast implant. No recurrence of ptosis was observed yet and no secondary revision surgery was performed. Conclusions Hybrid mastopexy augmentation is an effective and safe procedure that combines the benefits of autologous fat grafting and implant-based breast augmentation. The transfer of autologous soft tissue allows obtaining a natural breast shape, reducing the onset of rippling and prothesis size. The reduction of prothesis size prevents ptosis recurrence but provides the desired projection. This reliable option improves long-term breast shape with elevated patient’s satisfaction. Level of evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

show abstract

Volumetric Evaluation of the Mammary Gland and Pectoralis Major Muscle following Subglandular and Submuscular Breast Augmentation

Abstract: Therapeutic, II.

Cited by 35 publications

References 42 publications

Photometric Evaluation of Long-term Changes in Breast Shape after Breast Augmentation and Vertical Mammaplasty

Photometric Evaluation of Long-term Changes in Breast Shape after Breast Augmentation and Vertical Mammaplasty

Implant to Fat: A Breast Augmentation Technique Validated by BREAST-Q

Hybrid mastopexy: improving outcomes on implant-based augmentation mastopexy with fat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About