Quantitative Appraisal Through MRI of Breast Tissue Thickness and Implant Projection After Breast Augmentation with High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants.

BACKGROUND: Changes in breast tissue thickness and in implant projection 5 years after augmentation with high- and extra-high-profile round implants were measured through MRI with a DICOM standard viewer. METHODS: Twenty-four females with small-volume breast asymmetry without hypertrophy or ptosis underwent subfascial breast augmentation for cosmetic purposes, by using micro-textured soft cohesive silicone gel-filled round implants, from a single manufacturer. MRI measured the linear antero-posterior dimension of breast tissue thickness and projection of the implants. Statistical analysis of data was performed by Pearson correlation coefficient, line graph, and scatter diagram. RESULTS: The "r" of Pearson for right and left breasts indicated a significant correlation between the breast tissue thickness before and 5 years after augmentation. Closeness of the lines displayed in the line graph indicated strong linear positive correlation between the breast tissue thicknesses. The "r" values for projection of right and left implants indicated a significant correlation between the projection standardized by the manufacturer and that encountered 5 years after augmentation with high- and extra-high-profile round implants. A scatter diagram of data indicated a strong positive correlation between implant projection standardized by the manufacturer and that encountered 5 years after augmentation, on both breasts. CONCLUSION: Soft cohesive silicone gel-filled high- and extra-high-profile round implants supported breast tissue compressing without significant loss of the implant projection. Despite the consistency of the soft cohesive silicone gel, the implant softness and flexibility were preserved, resulting in low-pressure gradient over the mammary parenchyma without significant changes of the breast tissue thickness. EBM LEVEL 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.

High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: Guidelines to Prevent Rippling and Implant Edge Visibility.

BACKGROUND: Rippling and implant edge visibility after breast augmentation depends on several factors. Among the most relevant are breast soft tissue thickness, particularly the retroareolar mammary parenchyma, and implant profile. They were correlates to prevent these occurrences. METHODS: Thirty patients underwent breast augmentation through subfascial dissection involving the pectoralis, serratus, external oblique, and rectus abdominis fascias. The thickness of the retroareolar mammary parenchyma distributed patients into two groups. Group I: patients with thickness equal to or greater than 4.0 cm received high-profile 85% fill round implants. Group II: patients with thickness up to 3.9 cm received extra-high-profile 100% fill round implants. MRI was performed preoperatively and 5 years after augmentation to evaluate breast tissue changes and implant contouring. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with high-profile implants and thirteen patients with extra-high-profile implants had noticeable improvement of the breasts without the occurrence of rippling or implant edge visibility. A natural appearance of the breast, increased mammary cone, balanced upper and lower pole contouring was maintained at 5 years postoperatively. MRI performed 5 years after breast augmentation validated patient clinical outcomes not evidencing implant deformities, or soft tissue thinning, parenchymal atrophy or chest wall deformities. CONCLUSIONS: The adequate correlation between retroareolar mammary parenchyma thickness with high-profile 85% fill and extra-high-profile 100% fill textured round implants was of utmost importance in preventing rippling and implant edge visibility. The wide fascial support, width of the implant smaller than the breast diameter, and soft cohesive gel-filled implants were co-adjuvant factors in preventing rippling and implant edge visibility. 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 .