Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of pain, nausea, and complications in outpatient and inpatient breast augmentation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Outpatient surgery is growing exponentially in different surgical areas, driven by cost savings and convenience for both the patient and the surgeon. Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgical procedures and despite being a simple procedure, some surgeons prefer to keep the patient overnight, due to fear of complications and unsatisfactory pain and nausea management. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative complications, pain, nausea, and satisfaction between an outpatient and on 24-h hospitalization basis.

Methods

Eighty female patients undergoing breast augmentation were selected. Patients were allocated randomly, 40 patients each group. One group remained hospitalized for 24 h and the other group was discharged after surgery. In both groups were evaluated the following: complications, postoperative pain, nausea, and patient satisfaction with the recovery regime. Patients were followed up weekly within the first 4 weeks and then monthly. Pain evaluation was carried out using the pain scale proposed by Huskisson. A statistical analysis was also made.

Results

Eighty patients were operated, 40 patients in each group. There were no intraoperative complications in any group. In the hospital group, there was one case of hematoma (2.5%) and in the outpatient group, there was one case of infection (2.5%) (p = 1). Regarding postoperative pain, the average score was 3.9 in the hospital group and 4.1 in the outpatient group (p = 0.39). All patients in the outpatient group (100%) reported being satisfied with their recovery site and only 80% in the hospital group were satisfied (p = 0.002). Eight patients (20%) would rather have been discharged after the procedure.

Conclusions

Breast augmentation performed in an outpatient setting presented complication rates similar to conventional hospitalization, as well as levels of postoperative pain and nausea. However, there was a higher rate of patient’s satisfaction in the outpatient group.

Level of Evidence: Level I, risk / prognostic study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Santos JS, Sankarankutty AJ, Salgado Jr. W, et al. (2008) Cirurgia Ambulatorial: Do conceito à organização de serviços e seus resultados. Medicina, Ribeirão Preto 41(3):274–86

  2. Alves EF (2010) Perfil dos atendimentos ambulatoriais realizados em uma clínica de cirurgia plástica no sul do Brasil. Revista Ciência & Saúde, Porto Alegre 3(2):45–51

  3. Haeck PC, Swanson JA, Iverson RE (2009) Evidence-based patient safety advisory: patient selection and procedures in ambulatory surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:6S–27S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons. 2010 Cosmetic procedures statistics. Available at: http://www.baaps.org.uk/about-us/press-releases/584. Accessed 15 Jan 2017

  5. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2010 plastic surgery pro¬cedural statistics. Available at: http://www.plasticsurgery.org/News-and-Resources/2011-Statistics-.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2017

  6. Roxo AC, Nahas FX, Bazi F, de Castro CC, Aboudib JH, Marques RG (2016) Evaluation of the effects of sillicone implants on the breast parenchyma. Aesthet Surg J 137:62–69

    Google Scholar 

  7. American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank Statistics 2014. Available at: http://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/2014. Accessed 15 Jan 2017

  8. Reece EM, Ghavami A, Hoxworth RE, Alvarez SA, Hatef DA, Brown S, Rohrich RJ (2009) Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns. Aesthet Surg J 29:116–121

  9. Stanley SS, Hoppe IC, Ciminello FS (2012) Pain control following breast augmentation: a qualitative systematic review. Aesthet Surg J 32(8):964–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klein DR, Rosenberg A (1981) Comparison of complications between in-hospital patients and out patients for aesthetic surgical procedures: a ten-year study. Plast Reconstr Surg 67(1):17–19

  11. Adams WP Jr, Mallucci P (2012) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 130(4):597e–611e http://aplicacao.saude.gov.br/plataformabrasil/login.jsf. Accessed 17 Jan 2017

  12. Huskisson EC (1974) Measurement of pain. Lancet v.2:1127–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Palumbo LT, Paul RE, Emery FB (1952) Results of primary inguinal hernioplasty. AMA Arch Surg 64:384–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis JE, Sugioka K (1987) Selecting the patient for major ambulatory surgery. Surgical and anesthesiology evaluations. Surg Clin North Am 67:721–732

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tebbets JB (2002) Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:273–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Swanson E (2013) Prospective outcome study of 225 cases of breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(5):1158–1166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhibo X, Miaobo Z (2009) Botulinum toxin type A infiltration for pain control after breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:263e–264e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eldor L, Weissman A, Fodor L et al (2008) Breast augmentation under general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care: a retrospective comparative study. Ann Plast Surg 61:243–246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arquero PS, Zanata FC, Ferreira LM, Nahas FX (2015) Capsular weakness around breast implant: a non-recognized complication. World J Plast Surg 4:168–174

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Carlos Weck Roxo, Ana Claudia Weck Roxo, Fernando Serra, Denise da Mota, João Henrique Spagolla Pontello, Daniel Leal, José Horácio Aboudib & Fábio X. Nahas

Authors
  1. Carlos Weck Roxo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Claudia Weck Roxo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernando Serra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Denise da Mota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. João Henrique Spagolla Pontello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel Leal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. José Horácio Aboudib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fábio X. Nahas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Weck Roxo.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the National Council of Ethics and Research under the number 34307314.3.0000.5259. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

Carlos Weck Roxo, Ana Claudia Weck Roxo, Fernando Serra, Denise da Mota, João Henrique Spagolla Pontello, Daniel Leal, José Horácio Aboudib, and Fábio X. Nahas declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Patient consent

All patients signed the consent statement before their inclusion in this study.

Funding

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roxo, C.W., Roxo, A.C.W., Serra, F. et al. Comparison of pain, nausea, and complications in outpatient and inpatient breast augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg 41, 27–30 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-017-1316-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-017-1316-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation