Clinical experience with a fourth-generation textured silicone gel breast implant: a review of 1012 Mentor MemoryGel breast implants.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of fourth- and fifth-generation silicone gel implants, manufacturers have conducted several prospective, multicenter trials to examine their safety and efficacy. However, these studies were not standardized with regard to surgeon skill, pocket placement, operative technique, adjunct therapies, or postoperative management. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the surgical outcomes of a single surgeon (WGS) in a consecutive series of breast augmentation cases using a fourth-generation cohesive silicone MemoryGel breast implant (Mentor, Santa Barbara, CA). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent silicone breast augmentation within the Mentor Adjunct Silicone MemoryGel breast implant by a single surgeon (WGS) within a single free-standing outpatient surgical center over a 13-year period (1992 to 2006). For each patient, demographic information, comorbidities, and surgical information (implant size and concomitant surgery) were recorded. In addition, outcomes were analyzed to identify complications and the need for surgical revision. RESULTS: A total of 1012 fourth-generation, textured, cohesive silicone gel implants were placed in 511 patients during the 13-year study period. The overall complication rate per implant was 5.5% (n=56 implants in 43 patients). The most common complication was capsular contracture (n=26; 2.6 %) followed by abnormal scarring (n=11; 1.1%). The overall revision rates per patient and per implant were 8.0% (n = 41 patients) and 6.8% (n = 69 implants), respectively. The average time interval between initial implantation and revision was 18.5 months (range, 2 weeks to 26 months). The most common indication for surgical revision was patient desire for implant size change (n=15 patients) followed by Baker class III or IV capsular contracture (n=13 patients). The presence of previous surgery for capsular contracture was not statistically correlated to the need for revision (P= .326). Age (P= .568), previous history of breast surgery (P= .704), and history of smoking (P= .138) were also not statistically correlated to revision. Placement of the implant in the subglandular position (n=30 implants), however, was statistically correlated with need for revision (P< .01). CONCLUSIONS: Mentor fourth-generation cohesive silicone gel implants possess a complication and revision profile that is superior to earlier-generation silicone gel implants. Implantation with MemoryGel implants, when standardized with regard to surgeon and operative technique, can have significantly reduced complication and revision rates compared to the Mentor Core Data.

Mastopexy revisited: a review of 150 consecutive cases for complication and revision rates.

BACKGROUND: Although there is an abundance of data in the literature regarding the safety of breast reduction and augmentation, nearly all of the literature concerning mastopexy describes techniques. There are few studies regarding revision and complication rates for mastopexy procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a series of 150 consecutive patients who underwent a mastopexy procedure. Operations were performed by one of two surgeons (W.G.S. or D.A.S.) in an outpatient surgery center over a 6-year period (1999-2005), with an average follow-up of 36 months. Patients were identified as being either primary (no previous breast surgery) or secondary (history of at least one previous breast surgery). The type of mastopexy design was recorded (inverted-T or vertical), and trends were examined. Complication and revision rates were observed, and their rates were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight women underwent bilateral and two underwent unilateral mastopexy for a total of 150 women and 298 breasts. There were 119 primary and 31 secondary patients. Mastopexy incision designs were as follows: 86% inverted-T and 14% vertical. There were no major complications. The most common complications were poor scarring (6%) and seroma formation (2.7%). The revision rate was 8.6%; 75% of revisions were for poor scarring. Some of these were performed with the patients under local anesthesia or at the time of a subsequent unrelated surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our series of 150 consecutive patients, with no major complications and a revision rate of 8.6% over an average of 36 months, indicates that mastopexy may be considered a safe and effective procedure.

A review of 100 consecutive secondary augmentation/mastopexies.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy has historically been a controversial topic, and it has been considered by some to be a difficult and unpredictable procedure. Secondary breast augmentation and mastopexy after previous breast surgery is rarely discussed in the literature, and little is known about the outcomes of these secondary procedures. OBJECTIVE: The authors present the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes in a series of 100 consecutive secondary simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy cases. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients who underwent secondary combined augmentation mammaplasty and mastopexy from 1992 to 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. The complications and revision rates in this group of patients were analyzed and compared with primary mastopexy alone, as well as with primary combined augmentation and mastopexy. Independent variables such as patient age, history of smoking, body mass index, type and size of implant, and type of mastopexy incision were analyzed for correlation with complication and revision rates. RESULTS: No major complications were noted in an average of 3.5 years follow-up (range 13 months to 13 years). Minor complications occurred in 13 patients, of whom 8 required revision surgery. The most common tissue-related complications were poor scarring (3%) and recurrent ptosis (3%). The most common implant-related complications were infection (3%) and capsular contracture (2%). In addition, 6 patients underwent reoperation for implant size exchange, and 1 patient underwent revision surgery to receive silicone implants. Patient age, history of smoking, body mass index, type and size of implant, type of mastopexy incision, type and number of previous breast surgeries, surgical time, concurrent non-breast operations, and preoperative ptosis grade were not statistically significant risks when correlated to the complication and revision rate. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy after previous breast surgery is a commonly performed procedure that is not adequately reported in the literature. Our study indicates that the procedure is safe and has complication and revision rates comparable to primary augmentation/mastopexy.

Is one-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases.

BACKGROUND: Although some authors have reported that 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy does not increase the risks of surgery, recent literature has raised the question of whether better results might be achieved by staging the procedures. OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the safety and efficacy of 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy in their own patients by analyzing long-term complication and revision rates. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 186 consecutive patients who underwent primary 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy at a single outpatient facility. Patient data recorded included age, body mass index, smoking status, degree of breast ptosis, and any preoperative asymmetry. Operation-related data recorded included type of mastopexy performed, operating surgeon, length of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists level, and concomitant procedures. Data on implant type, volume, and position were also collected. Complication and revision rates were recorded and calculated. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (44%) received saline implants; 104 (56%) received silicone implants. In most cases, textured implants were placed in submuscular pockets. The mean implant volume was 320 cc. Inverted T mastopexy was performed in 60% of cases, circumareolar in 24% of cases, and vertical or crescent accounted for most of the remainder. No severe complications occurred, although 1 patient developed a late infection that required removal of the breast implant. The most common complication was saline implant deflation (5.9%), although saline implants were used in less than half of cases. Thirty-one patients (16.7%) underwent some form of revision surgery within the average 42-month follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Our review of 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy procedures revealed no severe complications. Although the overall revision rate of 16.7% is significant, it is comparable to rates for breast augmentation alone and is significantly lower than the 100% reoperation rate required for a staged procedure. In our experience, it is a safe and effective procedure, although one that is not easy to perform. Patients should be advised of the possibility that a second procedure may be necessary.

Laser-assisted breast reduction: a safe and effective alternative. A study of 367 patients.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have been published documenting the safety of laser-assisted breast reduction, they have involved only small numbers of patients. OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of a series of 367 consecutive patients who underwent inferior pedicle laser-assisted breast reduction surgery at a single outpatient facility from 1995 through 2004. METHODS: All patients received appropriate preoperative intravenous antibiotics and had sequential compression devices placed on their lower extremities before induction of anesthesia. Pedicle deepithelialization was performed using a carbon dioxide laser in continuous mode. Following deepithelialization, an inferior pedicle Wise-pattern breast reduction was performed in standard fashion. In approximately 20% of cases, breast reduction was combined with lipoplasty, facial aesthetic surgery, or abdominoplasty. Minor complications assessed included seroma, hematoma, infection, dog-ear, and incisional wound breakdown. Major complications were defined as >25% nipple/areola necrosis, blood transfusion, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, myocardial infarction, or death. RESULTS: No major complications were noted in our series. Two patients with infections required short-term hospitalization for administration of intravenous antibiotics. A total of 47 minor complications occurred in 42 patients (11%), including 36 incisional wound breakdowns, 6 infections, 3 hematomas, 1 seroma, and 1 dog-ear revison. The incisional breakdowns included 25 minor T-zone wounds, 2 nipple-areolar complex wounds, and 9 wounds of the vertical and transverse incisions. No inclusion cysts were noted in any patients. CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates for our series of patients who underwent laser-assisted breast reduction surgery were consistent with those reported for non-laser-assisted procedures. These results, combined with the benefits and efficient operating time afforded by laser deepithelialization, indicate that laser-assisted breast reduction surgery can provide an alternative to standard methods of deepithelialization for those surgeons with access to a carbon dioxide laser.

Surgical anatomy of the lower face: the premasseter space, the jowl, and the labiomandibular fold.

The anatomic basis for the jowl has not been fully described. A formal analysis was performed of the sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) areolar tissue layer, which overlies the lower part of the masseter. For this research, facial dissections were performed on 16 fresh cadavers ages 12 to 89 years, and detailed anatomic observations were made during the course of several hundred rhytidectomy procedures. Tissue samples from varying age groups were examined histologically. The areolar cleavage plane overlying the lower masseter has specific boundaries and is a true space named the "premasseter space." This space is rhomboidal in shape, lined by membrane, and reinforced by retaining ligaments. The masseter fascia lines the floor, and branches of the facial nerve pass under its deep surface. Histologically, the floor is formed by a thin layer of dense connective tissue, which undergoes minor deterioration in architectural arrangement with age. The roof, lined by a thin transparent and adherent membrane on the underside of the platysma, has a less dense collagen network and contains more elastin. With age, there is a significant reduction in the collagen density of the roof. Expansion of the space with aging, secondary to weakness of the anterior and inferior boundaries, results in formation of the jowl. Medial to the premasseter space is the buccal fat in the masticator space, which descends with aging and contributes to the labiomandibular fold and jowl. Application of the premasseter space in surgery provides significant benefits. The SMAS incision should be forward of the traditional preauricular location to be over the space, not behind. Because the space is a naturally occurring cleavage plane, dissection is bloodless and safe, as all facial nerve branches are outside. The premasseter space should be considered as the preferred dissection plane for lower (cervicofacial) facelifts.

One-stage mastopexy with breast augmentation: a review of 321 patients.

BACKGROUND: One-stage mastopexy with breast augmentation is an increasingly popular procedure among patients. In the past 9 years, there has been a 506 percent increase in mastopexy procedures alone. Although some recommend a staged mastopexy and breast augmentation, there are currently no large studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of a one-stage procedure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 321 consecutive patients who underwent one-stage mastopexy and breast augmentation. Data collected included the following: patient characteristics, implant information, operative technique, and postoperative results. Complication and revision rates were calculated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the one-stage procedure. RESULTS: No severe complications were recorded over an average of 40 months' follow-up. The most common complication was deflation of a saline implant (3.7 percent), followed by poor scarring (2.5 percent), recurrent ptosis (2.2 percent), and areola asymmetry (2.2 percent). Forty-seven patients (14.6 percent) underwent some form of revision surgery following the one-stage procedure. Thirty-five (10.9 percent) of these were for an implant-related issue, whereas 12 patients (3.7 percent) underwent a tissue-related revision. This 10.9 percent implant-related revision rate is less than a previously documented 13.2 percent 3-year reoperation rate for breast augmentation alone. The authors' 3.7 percent tissue-related revision rate also compares favorably to an 8.6 percent revision surgery rate in patients who underwent mastopexy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Although it has been stated that the risks of a one-stage procedure are more than additive, the results of our review suggest otherwise. Although a revision rate of 14.6 percent is significant, it is far from the 100 percent reoperation rate required for a staged procedure.

Histologic and ultrastructural evaluation of sutures used for surgical fixation of the SMAS.

In extensive SMAS face-lift surgery, retaining ligaments are released, and the SMAS is resutured to the deep fascia to maintain the advanced position. The suture used to reattach the SMAS should replicate the quality of support provided by the original ligaments. Nonabsorbable sutures (monofilament and braided) retrieved intraoperatively from 22 patients undergoing secondary face-lift procedures were examined by light microscopy and transmission electronmicroscopy. A distinctive enclosure of dense collagen and elastin formed around both types of suture. Based on the presence of inflammatory cells, fibroblasts, collagen, and elastin, the tissue reaction to monofilament suture was less than with the braided suture. The collagen and elastin were thicker around the braided suture, and, additionally the collagen matrix infiltrated between the individual filaments. Ultrastructural analysis of the braided suture showed significant collagen binding around each individual filament. The greater quantity of connective tissue around the thread which continued into the interstices of the braided suture has the characteristics of a ligament. This suggests a stronger and more lasting tissue fixation.

Latissimus dorsi reconstruction: a good option for patients with failed breast conservation therapy.

The majority of patients with breast carcinoma are being treated with breast conservation therapy (BCT): lumpectomy and postoperative radiation. Local recurrence reported at 8% to 11% is often treated with salvage mastectomy. This has led to a growing group of patients requiring breast reconstruction after failed BCT. Reluctance to use the latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) has resulted from reports of high implant capsular contracture rates. We present a series of 12 patients who underwent LDF reconstruction after the development of recurrent breast cancer after BCT. All 12 patients had a satisfactory esthetic result. Despite previous radiation, the capsular contracture rate was 12.5% (median follow up, 50 months; range, 20-93 months). The most common complication was donor site seroma in 25% (3 of 12) of cases. The LDF yielded satisfactory esthetic results with a low capsular contracture rate. Despite prior radiation, LDF remains a good option for breast reconstruction after failure of BCT.