Breast Morphological Changes after Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation with Smooth Round Implants: A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation is the most performed cosmetic surgery in the world. Although smooth round implants are widely used, the trend in breast morphology change after dual-plane augmentation with such implants remains unclear. In this study, we analyzed the issue with the support of 3D scanning technology, which may help provide an objective basis for the evaluation of postoperative outcomes and the determination of follow-up time points. METHODS: Patients undergoing dual-plane augmentation with smooth round implants were prospectively included in this study. The variation trend of postoperative breast morphology was analyzed by measuring the specified linear distance, body surface distance, breast projection, nipple position and breast volume at different follow-up time points (1st month, post-1M; 3rd month, post-3M; 6th month, post-6M; 12th month, post-12M). RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were included in this study. During the postoperative follow-up period, breast height prolonged while interval of the medial border gradually widened. Breast width was maintained without significant alterations from post-1M. The N-MBB lengthened with shortening of the N-LBB, meanwhile the N-IMF was prolonged by 0.6 cm. Breast volume was gradually reduced with the decrease in breast projection. The position of the nipple gradually shifted laterally, superiorly, and posteriorly after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between the linear distance at post-3M and post-12M, while the surface distance, breast projection, nipple position and breast volume tended to be stable at post-6M. CONCLUSIONS: After dual-plane augmentation with smooth round implants, the base contour of the breast shifted outwards and downwards, and stabilized after 3 months. The remaining breast morphological parameters reached a relative steady state by post-6M, which could be regarded as the time point for objective evaluation of postoperative effect. 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 .

Why Do We Need Anatomical Implants? the Science and Rationale for Maintaining Their Availability and Use in Breast Surgery.

The choice between anatomical and round implants is an important decision in breast augmentation surgery; however, both have their place and the decision between them that should be made on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account the patient's desires, anatomy, and surgical history. In some individuals, there are clear indications for using either anatomical or round devices, and there is good evidence that aesthetic outcomes are better with anatomical implants in some instances. When both types are an option, anatomical devices may offer increased flexibility and, despite a longer learning curve needed to properly manage them, they are associated with positive long-term outcomes and high levels of patient satisfaction. Concerns about implant rotation can be minimized with proper patient selection and surgical technique, and the overall complication rate may favor anatomical over round devices in appropriate patients. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma is an important issue, and while rare, it must be considered in the context of the entire patient risk profile. Both anatomical and round implants remain key elements of a complete surgical toolbox in breast augmentation. 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.

Fat Graft in Composite Breast Augmentation with Round Implants: A New Concept for Breast Reshaping.

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation surgery with implants is one of the most common aesthetic surgical procedures. Round and anatomical textured implants are employed very often, and fat grafting has proven to be a very useful complementary procedure in breast augmentation. Many authors report a more natural result with anatomical compared to round implants. Nevertheless, anatomical implants can be associated with complications such as implant rotation with subsequent shape distortion. In this article, we propose a combination of high-profile round implants and fat grafting to obtain a natural result analyzing its impact on the aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction. METHODS: In this study, we report our personal approach on 31 consecutive patients undergoing primary aesthetic breast augmentation with high-profile round implants and fat grafting. We describe our personal technique of breast augmentation via the periareolar approach and fat grafting. We evaluated short- and medium-term aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction using a 10-point VAS scale. RESULTS: We achieved in all cases high patient satisfaction and good aesthetic outcomes with a "natural" breast shape and a "smoothened" upper pole with low complication rates. The technique is safe, simple, fast, and it leads to high levels of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations show that the combination of high-profile round implants and fat grafting in aesthetic breast augmentation can improve the aesthetic outcome and patient satisfaction as with anatomical implants eliminating the risk of implant rotation. 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 .

Transition from Round to Shaped Implants in Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Our Preferred Approach and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Smooth, round, silicone implants predominate device-based breast reconstruction in the USA; despite their prevalence, complications can include bottoming out, superior contour deformity, rippling, and/or lateral malposition. This complication profile increases the need for revision surgery and subsequent patient dissatisfaction. With the resurgence of shaped, textured, silicone implants in the USA, we report the senior author's success with these devices and outline a strategy to optimize outcomes in breast reconstruction surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on a prospectively collected IRB-approved database of nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSMs) with immediate breast reconstruction with smooth, round, silicone implants (Group A) in 2011 in comparison to textured, shaped, silicone implants (Group B) in 2012. Changes in operative technique were highlighted and extrapolated. Outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: In Group A, 128 NSMs were performed in 76 patients. In Group B, 109 NSMs were performed in 59 patients. Thirteen percent of patients in Group A had direct to implant reconstruction as compared with 21% in Group B. Patients with textured, shaped implants were more likely to have acellular dermal matrix (61 vs 34%, p < 0.0001) than those with smooth, round implants. Patients who had smooth, round implants were more likely to have postoperative nipple malposition (18 vs 0%, p < 0.0001,) and rippling (29 vs 0%, p < 0.0001.) Patients with textured, shaped implants had fewer operative revision reconstructions as compared with those with smooth, round implants (36.71 vs 12.8%, p < 0.0001) Based on these results, our technique has evolved and has eight key technical modifications. CONCLUSION: With a few adaptations in surgical technique, the transition to textured, shaped, silicone devices for breast reconstruction can be seamless with superior breast contour and reduced complications/revision rates. 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 .

Outcome analysis and assessment of the lower pole expansion following breast augmentation with ergonomic implants: Optimizing results with patient selection based on 5-year data.

BACKGROUND: Silicone implants have gone through adaptations to improve esthetic outcomes. With the progress of technology, including gel rheology, different properties have been introduced. Ergonomic style implants (ESI) feature enhanced rheological properties and provide a shaped contour with a round base. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated outcomes for ESI in breast augmentation concerning lower pole stretching (LPS) and implant stability and describes an algorithm to assist in decision-making. METHODS: A total of 148 patients (296 breasts) underwent breast augmentation with ESI; this procedure was indicated in patients with good skin quality and <6 cm between the nipple-areola complex and the inframammary fold. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 29.6 years (range: 19-39), and 93 patients (62.8%) underwent primary breast augmentation with demi/full projection (average volume of 245 cc [175-375 cc]). Axillary incision and subfascial pocket were indicated in 115 (77.7%) and 72 (48%) cases, respectively. Average LPS values were 32.2% (24.91 mm) and 10.86% (9.42 mm) at up to 10 days and 10 days to 12 months postprocedure, respectively. Patients were followed for a mean of 29.9 ± 26.4 months (range: 6-66). Complication rates per breast and per patient were 5% and 10%, respectively, and included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (1.6%), implant displacement (1.2%), and wound dehiscence (0.8%). No cases of infection, seroma, or rippling complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The present decision-making algorithm summarizes the process involved in breast augmentation using ESI and is intended to help standardize decisions. With correct planning, long-lasting outcomes can be achieved due to favorable interactions between ESI and the patient's tissues.

Breast implant design.

Breast Augmentation remains as one of the most common procedures performed in the United States. This article explores the evolution of breast implants with special emphasis on the advancement of the silicone implants.

The Evolution of Breast Implants.

Breast augmentation remains one of the most common procedures performed in the United States. However, shape, feel, safety, and longevity of the implants remain important areas of research. The data provided by manufacturers show the safety and efficacy of these medical devices. Clinicians should strive to provide ongoing data and sound science to continue to improve clinical outcomes in the future. This article explores the evolution of breast implants with special emphasis on the advancement of silicone implants.