Composite Sling: A Strategy for Enhancing Inferolateral Support in Mastopexy with Implant.

Augmentation mastopexy has attracted the attention of numerous authors seeking to improve surgical outcomes and ensure breast implant stability. The utilization of the dual plane technique with a lateral sling, pioneered by Ono and Karner, has demonstrated effectiveness in providing long-term implant support. However, challenges arise in cases of anatomical variations, such as a short pectoralis major (PM) muscle or chest, necessitating alternative approaches like the composite sling. This study presents a technique designed to elongate and broaden the lateral sling to enhance implant support. The composite sling incorporates components from the abdominal part of the PM muscle, the aponeurotic/muscular part of the external oblique muscle, and the cranial part of the rectus abdominis. Procedures were performed on 29 patients using the composite sling technique from July 2022 to October 2023. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 18 months (average of 11.89 months). The lateral sling approach was successfully extended to cases with a short PM muscle or chest, previously managed using the dual plane technique without inferolateral support. No increase in complications or implant displacements was observed compared with the original lateral sling approach. However, four reoperations addressed issues such as dog ears, scarring, and minor asymmetries. Consistent results were observed throughout the follow-up period, particularly in maintaining upper pole fullness and preventing lower pole ptosis. The composite sling approach provides a viable solution for cases where the original sling technique is impractical. Its implementation could broaden surgical options and optimize results, particularly in cases of unfavorable anatomy.

Safe Augmentation Mastopexy: Review of 500 Consecutive Cases Using a Vertical Approach and Muscular Sling.

Background: Augmentation mastopexy remains a challenging surgery and has been frequently associated with suboptimal outcomes and remarkable reoperation rates, and one of the greatest challenges in mastopexy surgery is areolar lift, especially when implants are simultaneously used. Through the authors' experience, this study is aimed to show a modification of the vertical approach with greater safety of the areolar pedicle. Methods: The study included all patients who underwent augmentation mastopexy surgery performed by the authors between 2019 and 2022, whether primary or nonprimary, and performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent this procedure. Results: The length of the areolar lift ranged from 0 cm to 14 cm. Among the 17.4% of nonprimary mastopexies, the longest areolar lift was 11 cm. No cases of nipple-areola complex ischemia/necrosis were observed. With this technique, there were 6.2% complications (n = 31), none of which were considered serious. Conclusions: This surgical sequence is a safe option for areolar lift in augmentation mastopexy. The vertical approach also has the advantage of producing considerably shorter horizontal scars. It is also reproducible, keeping the implant stable, which results in consistent long-term results.

Subglandular-to-Subpectoral Conversion with Mastopexy: The Four-Step Approach.

BACKGROUND: Because of the multiplying number of patients undergoing breast augmentation, nonprimary augmentation mastopexy will be increasingly requested in the future; this operation represents an even more significant challenge than primary augmentation mastopexy. The authors describe a standardized approach for subglandular-to-subpectoral implant pocket conversion in mastopexy that provides a tight neopocket with inferolateral muscular support, which minimizes implant displacement complications and allows operative strategies to reduce the risk of bacterial load on implants. METHODS: The authors' technique proposes the following: (1) modified subpectoral pocket, with muscular inferolateral support for the implant; (2) independent approaches to the submuscular pocket and subglandular (preexisting) pocket; and (3) preestablished four-step surgical sequence. The authors collected data from their private practices for 46 patients who underwent the technique from March of 2017 to April of 2020. Patient perception about aesthetic outcomes, photographs from multiple postoperative follow-ups, and surgical complications/reoperation rates were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall results were positive; 89.1 percent of patients reported satisfaction with their aesthetic outcomes. No major complications occurred. The total revision rate was 15.2 percent, but only 2.1 percent in the last year, as the learning curve progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary augmentation mastopexy is a complicated procedure. The four-step sequence approach is one reliable option for subglandular-to-subpectoral pocket conversion, once it produced high levels of patient satisfaction while producing low complication rates. Other surgeons' experiences with the technique and further studies are necessary to validate these findings. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Four-step Augmentation Mastopexy: Lift and Augmentation at Single Time (LAST).

Augmentation mastopexy is one of the most difficult challenges plastic surgeons face, especially concerning sustainability of upper pole fullness and lower pole ptosis correction. We describe our technique for augmentation mastopexy that provides inferolateral muscular support for the implant and standardizes a sequence of surgical stages to resolve multiple situations and present the outcomes of patients who underwent such an approach. METHODS: Our technique proposes the following: (a) modified subpectoral pocket, with muscular inferolateral support for the implant; (b) independent approaches to the submuscular (implant) pocket and parenchymal resection/reshaping; and (c) pre-established 4-step surgical sequence. Data from office files of our private practice were collected for 266 patients who underwent the technique from October 2015 to January 2019. Patient perception about esthetic outcomes, photographs from multiple postoperative follow-ups, and surgical complications/reoperation rates were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall mid-term and long-term results (39 months) were positive for lift and augmentation at single time mastopexy; >90% of patients reported satisfaction with their esthetic outcomes, including absence of ptosis. No major complications occurred. The total revision rate was 16%, but it became <5% in 2018 as the learning curve progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Augmentation mastopexy is complex, and the myriad of approaches and possibilities may cause confusion when selecting the most suitable one. The 4-step sequence provides a reliable option, offering a predefined execution plan, whereas inferolateral muscular support prevents recurrence of lower pole ptosis. Other surgeons' experience with lift and augmentation at single time mastopexy and further studies are necessary to validate these findings.