, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 349-354
Date: 19 Aug 2011

Simultaneous Augmentation Mastopexy: A Technique for Maximum En Bloc Skin Resection Using the Inverted-T Pattern Regardless of Implant Size, Asymmetry, or Ptosis

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

Background

Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy for moderately to severely ptotic breasts presents the challenge of determining how much excess skin should be removed after implant placement to create symmetry and provide for maximal skin tightening without compromising tissue vascularization.

Methods

Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy involves invagination and tailor tacking of the excess skin after implant placement and then making a pattern around the tailor-tacked tissues for previsualization of the total area to be resected. This contrasts with first making a pattern for the mastopexy, resecting the skin, and then tailor tacking the tissues together. Over a 7-year period, 55 women had simultaneous augmentation mastopexy with this approach. Saline implants were placed in the subpectoral dual-plane position before the mastopexy was started. All surgeries were performed with the patient under general anesthesia, and the patients were discharged the same day. In a retrospective chart review, breast implant size, degree of preoperative asymmetry, length of procedure, and complications were recorded. The patient follow-up period ranged from 3 months to 7 years (median, 9 months).

Results

Symmetric, aesthetic results were achieved for all the patients. The range of saline implants used was 375–775 ml (average, 500 ml). Of the 55 women, 15 had two different size implants measuring at least 50 ml or larger, with the greatest size disparity in a patient being 225 ml (left breast, 700 ml; right breast, 475 ml). Six of the patients (10.9%) had small areas that healed by secondary intention, occurring mostly at the inferior junction of the inverted T. Only two patients (3.6%) had recurrence of breast ptosis, and only one patient (1.8%) had a mildly hypertrophic scar. There were no incidences of hematoma, infection, rippling, malposition of the nipple–areolar complex (NAC), NAC loss, capsular contraction, implant malposition, or dissatisfaction with implant size. The bilateral augmentation/mastopexy surgery time ranged from 2 h and 29 min to 4 h and 30 min (average, 3 h and 8 min).

Conclusions

The described technique maximizes the amount of tissue to be resected in simultaneous augmentation mastopexy for moderately to severely ptotic breasts. Symmetry is more easily achieved with this approach regardless of the implant size used or the amount of skin to be resected. This technique minimizes the chance of tissue necrosis from devascularized skin edges. It also may shorten the inverted T scar and reduce the operative time.