Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reoperative Transaxillary Breast Surgery: Using the Axillary Incision to Treat Augmentation-related Complications

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The axillary incision for breast augmentation has been an option for patients and surgeons for more than 30 years now. Controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that reoperations continue to be significant (15–24% at 3 years) independent of incision choice. The misbelief that the transaxillary approach is not adequate for reoperations inhibits patients’ and surgeons’ decisions on what incision is best in each case.

Methods

A retrospective analyses was performed seeking reoperation cases performed from January 2008 to January 2011 that used the same axillary incision as the previous transaxillary augmentation. Data on the cause for the reoperation, time between surgeries, patient age, implant volume, locality of the primary operation, and details regarding the implant type and pocket plane were gathered and analyzed.

Results

A total of 15 patients and 26 breasts needing reoperation were found in this period. The average time between the first surgery and reoperation was 12 months, average patient age was 36 years, and implant volume ranged from 195 to 360 cc, with an average of 283 cc. Six of these patients were previously operated on by the authors and nine were operated on by other surgeons and came to our service seeking revision. Details regarding the implant type and pocket plane are also given. The main causes for reoperation were capsular contracture (26.9%), size change (15.4%), seroma/hematoma (11.5%), infection (11.5%), axillary banding/scarring (11.5%), lower-pole deformity/high-riding (11.5%), asymmetry (7.7%), and rippling/waviness (3.8%).

Conclusion

Transaxillary breast augmentation reoperation is feasible if certain principles are followed.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part II. Patient preparation, refined surgical techniques, and instrumentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7):115S–127S (discussion 128S–132S)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tebbetts JB (2006) Axillary endoscopic breast augmentation: processes derived from a 28-year experience to optimize outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):53S–80S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Buschpiegel C, Ono C, Montag E, Fells K et al (2005) The feasibility of sentinel lymph node detection in patients with previous transaxillary implant breast augmentation: preliminary results. Aesthet Plast Surg 29(3):163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sado HN, Graf RM, Canan LW, Romano GG, Timi JR, Matias JE et al (2008) Sentinel lymph node detection and evidence of axillary lymphatic integrity after transaxillary breast augmentation: a prospective study using lymphoscintography. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(6):879–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mottura AA, Del Castillo R (2007) Transaxillary breast augmentation: two breast cancer patients with successful sentinel lymph node diagnosis. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(5):544–549 (discussion 550–552)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Munhoz AM, Ferreira MC (2007) Implications of transaxillary breast augmentation: lifetime probability for the development of breast cancer and sentinel node mapping interference. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(4):320–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Spear SL, Clemens MW, Dayan JH (2008) Considerations of previous augmentation in subsequent breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J 28(3):285–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Adams WP Jr (2008) The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(6):1892–1900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 33(1):44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, Mahoney A, Thiels C, Nahai FR et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1300–1310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mathes SJ (2005) Plastic surgery, vol 6: trunk and lower extremity, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  12. McCarthy JG, Galiano RD, Boutros SG, Boutros S (2006) Current therapy in plastic surgery. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(Suppl):35S–45S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammaplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(6):1453–1457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tebbetts JB (2008) Reoperations as a benchmark: the rhetoric, the logic, and the patient. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(2):662–665

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Basile AR, Basile F, Basile AVD (2005) Late infection following breast augmentation with textured silicone gel-filled implants. Aesthet Surg J 25(3):249–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yu L, Wang J, Zhang B, Zhu C (2008) Endoscopic transaxillary capsular contracture treatment. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(2):329–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hall-Findlay EJ (2011) Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(1):56–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Spear SL, Carter ME, Ganz JC (2006) The correction of capsular contracture by conversion to “dual-plane” positioning: technique and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):103S–113S (discussion 114S)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dickinson BP, Handel N (2011) Approaching revisional surgery in augmentation and mastopexy/augmentation patients. Ann Plast Surg. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182110ff3

  21. Song JW, Kim HM, Bellfi LT, Chung KC (2011) The effect of study design biases on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1029–1044

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Di Benedetto G, Cecchini S, Grassetti L, Baldassarre S, Valeri G, Leva L et al (2008) Comparative study of breast implant rupture using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with surgical findings. Breast J 14(6):532–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Paetau AA, McLaughlin SA, McNeil RB, Sternberg E, TerKonda SP, Waldorf JC et al (2010) Capsular contracture and possible implant rupture: is magnetic resonance imaging useful? Plast Reconstr Surg 125(3):830–835

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Spear SL, Howard MA, Boehmler JH, Ducic I, Low M, Abbruzzesse MR (2004) The infected or exposed breast implant: management and treatment strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(6):1634–1644

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dowden RV (1997) Subcutaneous fibrous banding after transaxillary subpectoral endoscopic breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 99(1):257

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Maximovich SP (1996) Transient axillary-upper inner arm subcutaneous fibrous banding following transaxillary subpectoral endoscopic breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 97(6):1304–1305

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Munhoz AM, Fells K, Arruda E, Montag E, Okada A, Aldrighi C et al (2006) Subfascial transaxillary breast augmentation without endoscopic assistance: technical aspects and outcome. Aesthet Plast Surg 30(5):503–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Spear SL, Seruya M, Clemens MW, Teitelbaum S, Nahabedian MY (2011) Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1047–1058

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG (2008) Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(3):418–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic Surgery Department, Basile Medical Center, Av. Prof Joao Fiusa 2300, Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 14024-230

    Filipe Volpe Basile & Antonio Roberto Basile

Authors
  1. Filipe Volpe Basile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Roberto Basile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filipe Volpe Basile.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Basile, F.V., Basile, A.R. Reoperative Transaxillary Breast Surgery: Using the Axillary Incision to Treat Augmentation-related Complications. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 323–330 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9810-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9810-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation