Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Double-bubble and bottoming-out deformities represent the second most common reason for revision surgery in breast augmentation. Etiopathogenesis of these complications is still unclear. The aim of this paper is to report our findings in breast cadaver dissections focusing on the inframammary fold (IMF) applied anatomy and to critically review our ten-year experience in breast augmentation. Methods A cadaveric study has been performed on four consecutive embalmed cadavers. A retrospective review of 207 consecutive women who underwent breast augmentation, using the submuscular dual-plane technique with a periareolar approach, between January 2003 and January 2013, was performed. Results According to our dissections, the IMF is a complex osseo-fascio-cutaneous structure in which the superficial pectoralis fascia represents a key structure in breast augmentation surgery. Hence, a critical analysis of the IMF relationship with surrounding breast structures helps to understand the etiology of double-bubble and bottoming-out deformities and gives the anatomical basis to prevent them. In our early clinical experience, we experienced 3% of double-bubble and 6% of bottoming-out deformities. Those complications were avoided later by dissection in the inferior pole according to the anatomical findings. Conclusions Bottoming-out and double-bubble deformities can be avoided if an anatomical approach is used during pocket dissection at the level of the IMF, paying attention to avoid disrupting the superficial and deep attachments of the superficial pectoralis fascia at the IMF. A comprehensive understanding of IMF anatomy and the key surgical maneuvers to avoid these complications must be taken into account for each route of dissection. 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 .

Background Incisions for insertion of breast implants are most commonly placed in the inframammary fold, areola, or axilla. Previous studies have evaluated selection of incision location preoperatively and for nipple–areola complex sensation retention after primary augmentation mammaplasty. This study compares the most common postoperative complications for each incision location in patients who underwent primary breast augmentation. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on 619 patients who underwent primary breast augmentation, excluding simultaneous mastopexy, within a single group practice from July 1994 to June 2009. Incision location, postoperative complications (capsular contracture, hematoma formation, rippling, infection, and rupture), and total reoperation rates were recorded. Incision locations were also compared with respect to implant fill type (saline or silicone gel) and pocket location (subglandular or submuscular). Results A statistically significant association was identified between total reoperation and incision location ( p  = 0.0054). The highest rate of total reoperation occurred when using an inframammary fold incision compared to either the transaxillary or periareolar. This relationship with total reoperation was not attributed to the five complications analyzed, but rather with patient desire for size/style change, asymmetry, or ptosis. No statistically significant association was observed between incision location and specific complications such as capsular contracture, rippling, implant rupture, hematoma, or infection. Conclusions None of the five complications analyzed correlated with incision location. The data generated from this study will assure the surgeon that all three incision locations are safe. Preoperative examination, patient preference, and surgeon comfort should remain the mainstays of incision planning in augmentation mammaplasty. 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 at www.springer.com/00266 .

BackgroundWell discussed in a previous article published by the senior author, primary transaxillary breast augmentation drawbacks include the need to correct complications arising from reuse of the axillary incision which the literature is sparse on. We here discuss a technique in patients who underwent a secondary transaxillary breast augmentation procedure.ObjectivesThis study aims to present a technique for transaxillary revision breast augmentation with conversion to a muscle-splitting plane which has the advantage of good upper and medial pole coverage and adequate lower pole expansion.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of 41 women with previous silicone gel implants placed through a transaxillary incision who presented with rippling or a desire for larger implants (January 2016–July 2020). Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older and having undergone breast augmentation surgery. Exclusion criteria were active smoking and body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2. At one year postoperatively patients were asked a “yes or no” question regarding satisfaction with the overall result and with the scar quality.ResultsA total of 41 patients were included in this study; no patients were excluded. The patients’ age ranged from 32 to 47 years, the average being 38 years old. All participants were female. Mean BMI was 21.9 kg/m2 and all patients had a pinch test <2cm. Indications for surgery included rippling (all patients) and a desire for larger implant size (n = 5). Size of new implants ranged from 325cc to 430cc; all were of a larger size than those used in the primary surgery. Operative time was on average 53 min. [4483 min.]. Mean follow-up was 13 months, ranging from 12 to 15 months. There was no additional cost related to operative time. Regarding patient satisfaction, 100% replied they were pleased with the overall results and scar quality. There were no major complications.ConclusionThe transaxillary approach for muscle splitting breast augmentation revision surgery offers a safe and reproducible technique. Despite having a mean follow-up of only 13 months, we demonstrate a low rate of complication as well as high degree of patient satisfaction with no extra cost when compared to other techniques.Level of Evidence IVThis 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.

Background: Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed plastic surgery procedures. Providing patients with realistic 3D simulations of breast augmentation outcomes is becoming increasingly common. Until recently, such programs were expensive and required significant equipment, training, and office space. New simple user-friendly programs have been developed, but to date there remains a paucity of objective evidence comparing these 3D simulations with post-operative outcomes. The aim of this study is to assess the aesthetic similarity between a pre-operative 3D simulation generated using Arbrea breast simulation software and real post-operative outcomes, with a focus on patient satisfaction. Methods: The authors conducted a prospective study of patients requiring breast augmentation. Patients were asked to assess how realistic the simulation was compared to the one-year post-operative result using the authors’ grading scale for breast augmentation simulation assessment. Patient satisfaction with the simulations was assessed using a satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (not at all satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied). Patient satisfaction with the surgical outcome was assessed using the BREAST-Q Augmentation Module. Results: All patients were satisfied with the simulations and with the attained breast volume, with a mean VAS score of 8.2 ± 1.2. The mean simulation time took 90 s on average. The differences between the pre-operative and one-year post-operative values of the three BREAST-Q assessments were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Three-dimensional simulation is becoming increasingly common in pre-operative planning for breast augmentation. The present study aimed to assess the degree of similarity of three-dimensional simulations generated using Arbrea Breast Software and found that the use of the software provided a very satisfying representation for patients undergoing breast augmentation. However, we recommend informing patients that only the volume simulation is extremely accurate. On the other hand, it is necessary to not guarantee an absolute correspondence regarding the breast shape between the simulation and the post-operative result.

Background: Thoracic interfascial plane blocks and modification (PECS) have recently gained popularity for analgesic potential during breast surgery. We evaluate/consolidate the evidence on opioid-sparing effect of PECS blocks in comparison with conventional intravenous analgesia (IVA) and paravertebral block (PVB). Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized controlled trials comparing PECS block to conventional IVA or PVB in patients undergoing breast surgery published till June 2017 were searched in the medical database. Comparisons were made for 24-h postoperative morphine consumption and intraoperative fentanyl-equivalent consumption. Results: Final analysis included nine trials (PECS vs. IVA 4 trials and PECS vs. PVB 5 trials). PECS block showed a decreased intraoperative fentanyl consumption over IVA by 49.20 mcg (95% confidence interval [CI] =42.67-55.74) (I2 = 98.47%, P < 0.001) and PVB by 15.88 mcg (95% CI = 12.95-18.81) (I2 = 95.51%, P < 0.001). Postoperative, 24-h morphine consumption with PECS block was lower than IVA by 7.66 mg (95% CI being 6.23-9.10) (I2 = 63.15, P < 0.001) but was higher than PVB group by 1.26 mg (95% CI being 0.91-1.62) (I2 = 99.53%, P < 0.001). Two cases of pneumothorax were reported with PVB, and no complication was reported in any other group. Conclusions: Use of PECS block and its modifications with general anesthesia for breast surgery has significant opioid-sparing effect intraoperatively and during the first 24 h after surgery. It also has higher intraoperative opioid-sparing effect when compared to PVB. During the 1st postoperative day, PVB has slightly more morphine sparing potential that may however be associated with higher complication rates. The present PECS block techniques show marked interstudy variations and need standardization.

BackgroundDespite novel assessment tools and 3D simulation, patient’s desire for implant size change is one of the most common reasons for revision surgery after primary breast augmentation. In this study, we analysed outcomes and predictive indicators for revision surgeries in a cohort of patients operated on by a single surgeon.Patients and MethodsAll consecutive patients who underwent revision augmentation surgery between 2013 and 2017 by the first author were included in this study. Besides review of medical records, subgroups based on the indication for revision surgery were compared and statistically analysed.ResultsA total of 110 patients were included in this study. Revision surgery was performed 97.2 months on average after primary augmentation. Eighty-six per cent of patients received larger implants. Indications for revision surgery and associated subgroups were: (1) wish for bigger implants (38%), (2) complication + wish for bigger implants (26%), (3) complication (29%), (4) complication + wish for smaller implants (3%) and (5) wish for smaller implants (3%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients who underwent revision surgery for bigger implants were significantly younger compared to patients who suffered a complication or desired smaller implants. Time to secondary augmentation was significantly shorter in case of wish for size change compared to complications as reason for revision surgery. Implant sizes differed significantly in patients where volume change was the sole indication for surgery compared to revisions performed due to complications.ConclusionIn our cohort of patients, almost all patients who underwent revision surgery after primary breast augmentation received bigger implants. Patients who specifically wished for size change were younger, asked for surgery earlier and received larger volumes compared to patients who underwent revision surgery for other reasons.Level of Evidence IVThis 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.

BackgroundThe rapid evolution of the social media platform has had a major effect on the field of medicine.ObjectiveTo identify patterns, trends and patients’ concerns before and after aesthetic surgeries involving breast implants, by analyzing social media posts.MethodsWe examined comments posted on popular Israeli online public forums between January 2019 and May 2021, regarding: breast augmentation, mastopexy-augmentation and breast implant removal.ResultsDuring the study period, 561 comments were posted on the three forums investigated: 165 pre-operative and 396 post-operative. In the pre-operative period, the main interests were implant size, type and location, as discussed in 69 posts (42%). During the first two months post-operative, questions reflected concerns regarding post-operative instructions, wound management and asymmetry: 76 (43%), 59 (34%) and 27 (16%), respectively. These topics continued to be in focus up to one year post-operative. Beyond the first post-operative year, patients’ main interests were breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (25 posts, 28%), capsule formation (23 posts, 26%) and systemic effects (23 posts, 26%).ConclusionsSocial media harnessing to identify patterns, trends and patient concerns pre- and post-aesthetic breast surgeries is a novel approach. Misinformation was common, particularly in comments posted more than one year post-operative. Four topics that especially concerned patients in the immediate and late post-operative period were asymmetric results, breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, capsule removal and systemic effects. We advise surgeon and plastic surgeon societies to issue position papers on controversial subjects, to counter the dissemination of potentially misleading information.Level of Evidence VThis 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

Background The axillary incision for breast augmentation has been an option for patients and surgeons for more than 30 years now. Controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that reoperations continue to be significant (15–24% at 3 years) independent of incision choice. The misbelief that the transaxillary approach is not adequate for reoperations inhibits patients’ and surgeons’ decisions on what incision is best in each case. Methods A retrospective analyses was performed seeking reoperation cases performed from January 2008 to January 2011 that used the same axillary incision as the previous transaxillary augmentation. Data on the cause for the reoperation, time between surgeries, patient age, implant volume, locality of the primary operation, and details regarding the implant type and pocket plane were gathered and analyzed. Results A total of 15 patients and 26 breasts needing reoperation were found in this period. The average time between the first surgery and reoperation was 12 months, average patient age was 36 years, and implant volume ranged from 195 to 360 cc, with an average of 283 cc. Six of these patients were previously operated on by the authors and nine were operated on by other surgeons and came to our service seeking revision. Details regarding the implant type and pocket plane are also given. The main causes for reoperation were capsular contracture (26.9%), size change (15.4%), seroma/hematoma (11.5%), infection (11.5%), axillary banding/scarring (11.5%), lower-pole deformity/high-riding (11.5%), asymmetry (7.7%), and rippling/waviness (3.8%). Conclusion Transaxillary breast augmentation reoperation is feasible if certain principles are followed.

Although transaxillary breast augmentation (TBA) is a well-studied procedure, few previous reports exist concerning the subfascial technique, especially without endoscopic assistance. This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of the technique after breast augmentation in terms of its indication, surgical technique, limitations, and clinical outcome. For this study, 42 patients underwent TBA without endoscopic assistance. The technique was indicated for patients with breasts of small or moderate volume without ptosis, patients who wanted no breast scars, and patients who had a poorly defined inframammary fold. The mean follow-up period was 16 months. Implant and incision approach complications were evaluated. Information on patient satisfaction was collected. A total of 14 complications occurred in 42 patients, all of them minor. Axillary incision-related complications occurred in 26% of the patients, as represented by a late axillary subcutaneous band (119%), sensory loss in the inner aspect of the arm (71%), and a hypertrophic scar and small wound dehiscence (71%). No patient presented with capsular contracture, visible rippling, or infection. Most of the patients (93%) were either very satisfied or satisfied with their result, and none regretted the surgery. The TBA procedure without endoscopic assistance is a simple and reliable technique for breast augmentation. Most of the complications in this study were minor and predictable. They did not interfere with the aesthetic outcome nor the normal postoperative recovery. With TBA, success depends on patient selection as well as careful intra- and postoperative management.