[Impact of breast dimension in one-stage augmentation mastopexies on implant selection: review of 103 consecutive breast augmentations with nanotextured silicone implants]. / Einfluss der Brustdimension bei der einzeitigen Augmentationsmastopexie auf die Implantatauswahl ­ Erfahrungen aus 103 konsekutiven Brustaugmentationen mit nanotexturierten Silikonimplantaten.

INTRODUCTION: According to current studies, one-stage augmentation mastopexy (AM) is associated with only minor complications and a lower reoperation rate compared with a staged procedure. In AM, breast dimension can differ notably compared with those cases without simultaneous mastopexy. However, these differences have only been insufficiently investigated. This study aims to quantify the differences and then evaluate the effect of breast dimension on implant selection. In addition, it evaluates the influence of mastopexy on the outcome of augmentation mammoplasties with round nanotextured silicone gel implants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a two-year period, all patients with primary augmentation mammoplasties using nanotextured implants were included in the study. Patients' demographic data, breast measurements, specifications of the implants placed, and complications in the breast augmentation group without mastopexy were compared with those of the group with AM. The satisfaction of patients and surgeons was documented using Likert scales. RESULTS: A total of 206 breast augmentations were performed in n = 103 patients. The mean follow-up was 24.0 ±â€…4.3 months. Compared with augmentations without an indication for simultaneous mastopexy, the AM group had wider breast bases and larger preoperative cup sizes; p < 0.001. As a result, implants selected for AM had greater diameters and lower volumes (p < 0.05) and were associated with smaller projections; p < 0.001. The total revision rates after augmentations without (n = 51) and with combined mastopexy (n = 52) were 5.9 % and 19.2 % (p < 0.05), respectively. AM increased tissue-related revisions from 2.0 % to 13.4 % (p < 0.05) without having an impact on implant-related revisions (3.9 % vs. 5.8 %, p = 0.663). The overall incidence of capsular contracture was 1.9 %. Satisfaction levels were approximately equal in both groups. CONCLUSION: In comparison to augmentations without mastopexy, wider breast bases and larger breast volumes before surgery lead to the selection of significantly different implant dimensions in AM. Nanotextured silicone implants are associated with low complication rates, while an increased risk for tissue-related revisions of the combined procedure remains. Further studies are necessary in order to evaluate possible advantages and disadvantages over established implants.

Management of Capsular Contracture in Cases of Silicone Gel Breast Implant Rupture with Use of Pulse Lavage and Open Capsulotomy.

INTRODUCTION: Pulse lavage (PL) irrigation of prosthesis pockets has prior been described for breast implant salvages. However, PL for removal of leaked silicone from prosthesis pockets after implant ruptures has not been studied yet. Since open capsulotomies are regarded as equal treatment of capsular contracture (CC) than capsulectomies, this study analyzed the clinical outcome of PL for silicone removal and subsequent capsulotomy in cases of concurrent CC and breast implant rupture. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2017, 55 patients (75 breasts) with suspected silicone implant rupture and CC (Baker grade III/IV), after primary breast augmentation or implant-based breast reconstruction, were included in a retrospective, observational study. Mean patient follow-up was 12.2 ± 3.6 months. RESULTS: In all preoperatively suspected ruptured silicone breast implants, around a quarter were intact. In contrast to previously published data, implant exchanges in cases of implant ruptures did not lead to significantly higher CC recurrence rates (27.6% vs. 22.2% in cases of intact implants, p = 0.682), if the prosthesis pockets were treated with PL irrigation followed by open capsulotomy. PL reduced the amount of encapsulated silicone remnants histologically. The age of patients with CC after failed implant-based reconstruction was significant lower for salvage surgeries with flap reconstruction than for implant exchanges, p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: PL irrigation of prosthesis pockets prior to open capsulotomy is a safe and effective treatment of CC with concurrent silicone leakage. Remaining silicone remnants in breast capsules may affect the development of a recurrent CC. To avoid CC recurrences, patients should consider conversion to autologous tissue. 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 .