Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Augmentation Mammoplasty and Mastopexy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Tips and Tricks in Plastic Surgery

  • 2457 Accesses

Abstract

Achieving a successful outcome in aesthetic breast surgery requires excellent preoperative and intraoperative decision-making and expert surgical execution. Thoughtful consideration of the patient’s desired aesthetic result in conjunction with the anatomic characteristics of her breast and chest wall provide insight into the optimal surgical approach to achieve a successful outcome. The most common procedures performed for correction include a breast augmentation, a breast lift (mastopexy), or a breast lift in conjunction with an augmentation (augmentation mastopexy). This chapter will highlight the preoperative evaluation and decision-making to select the optimal procedure for aesthetic improvement in the breast. When a patient needs a mastopexy with an augmentation, the decision to perform simultaneously or as a staged procedure will be reviewed. The operative technical strategies will likewise be outlined in detail to safely execute these procedures. The details, decisions, and experience-based pearls involved in this operation can provide guidance to perform these operations with expert precision.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Spears SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:8S–16S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2009;33:440–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Araco A, Caruso R, Araco F, Overton J, Gravante G. Capsular contracture: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1808–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Virden CP, Dobbke MK, Stein P, Parsons CL, Frank DH. Subclinical infection of the silicone breast implant surface as a possible casue of capsular contracture. Aesthet Plast Surg. 1992;16:173–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pajkos A, Deva AK, Vickery K, Cope C, Chang L, Cossart YE. Detection of subclinical infection in significant breast implant capsules. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:1605–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rieger UM, Mesina J, Kalbermatten DF, Haug M, Frey HP, Pico R, et al. Bacterial biofilms and capsular contracuture in patients with breast implants. Br J Surg. 2013;100:768–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mladick RA. “No-touch” submuscular saline breast augmentation technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1993;17:183–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wixtrom RN, Stutman RL, Burke RM, Mahoney AK, Codner MA. Risk of breast implant bacterial contamination from endogenous breast flora, prevention with nipple shields, and implications for biofilm formation. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32:956–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moyer HR, Ghazi B, Saunders N, Losken A. Contamination in smooth gel breast implant placement: testing a funnel versus digital insertion technique in a cadaver model. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(2):194–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Adams WP, Rios JL, Smith S. Enhancing patient outcomes in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery using triple antibiotic breast irrigation: six-year prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(Suppl 7):46S–52S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, Harrington JL, Capizzi PJ, et al. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):1115–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schaub TA, Ahmad J, Rohrich RJ. Capsular contracture with breast implants in the cosmetic patient: saline versus silicone. A systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:2140–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH. Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66(9):1165–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barnsley GP, Siigurdson LJ, Barnsley SE. Textured surface breast implants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:2182–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hakelius L, Ohlsen L. Tendency to capsule contracture around smooth and textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants: a 5-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1566–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Burkhardt B, Eades E. The effect of biocell texturizing and povidione-iodine irrigation on capsule contracture around saline-inflatable breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:1317–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Coleman DJ, Foo IT, Sharpe DT. Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? A prospective controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg. 1991;44:444–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Malata CM, Felderg L, Coleman DJ, Foo IT, Sharpe DT. Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? Three year follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50:99–105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Weiner RC. Relationship of incision choice to capsular contracture. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2008;32:303–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA. Mentor Contour Profile Gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1381–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32:709–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jewell ML, Jewell JL. A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2010;30:51–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Caplin DA. Indications for the use of MemoryShape breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: long-term clinical outcomes of shaped versus round silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(3S):27S–37S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Muntan CD, Sundine MJ, Rink RD, Acland RD. Inframammary fold: a histological reappraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:549–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Teitelbaum S. The inframammary approach to breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36:33–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tebbetss JB, Adams WP. Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:2005–16.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Adams WP. The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1892–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S. High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:2150–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Calobrace MB, Kaufman DL, Gordon AE, Reid DL. Evolving practices in augmentation operative tehniques with Sientra HSC round implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(Suppl 1):57S–67S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hammond DC. Technique and results using MemoryShape implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(Suppl 3):16S–26S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schwartz MR. Algorithm and techniques for using Sientra’s silicone gel shaped implants in primary and revision breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(Suppl 1):18S–27S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Strasser EJ. Results of subglandular versus subpectoral augmentation over time: one surgeon’s observations. Aesthet Surg J. 2006;26:45–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Goes JCS, Landecker A. Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years of experience with the subfascial plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003;27:178–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Serra-Renom J, Garrido MF, Yoon T. Augmentation mammoplasty with anatomic soft, cohesive silicone implant using the transaxillary approach at a subfascial level with endoscopic assistance. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:640–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Graf R, Pace DT, Damasio RC, Rippel LR, Araugo LG, Neto T, et al. Subfascial breast augmentation. In: Innovations in plastic and aesthetic surgery. New York: Springer; 2008. p. 406–13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:1255–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(Suppl 1):12S–7S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. The evolution of breast implants. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36:1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schusterman MA. Lowering the inframammary fold. Aesthet Surg J. 2004;24:482–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Binelli L. A new periareolar mammoplasty: the “round block” technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1990;14:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lejour M. Vertical mammoplasty for breast reduction and mastopexy. In: Spear SL, editor. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998. p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hall-Findlay EJ. Pedicles in vertical breast reduction and mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg. 2002;29:379–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wise RJ. Treatment of breast hypertrophy. Clin Plast Surg. 1976;3:289–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Marchac D, Olarte G. Reduction mammoplasty and correction of ptosis with a short inframammary scar. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:45–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 1976;3:193–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hall-Findlay EJ. Applied anatomy: key concepts for modern breast surgery. In: Hall-Findlay EJ, editor. Aesthetic breast surgery: concepts and techniques. New York: Thieme; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Adams WP, Moses AC. Use of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh to optimize soft-tissue support in mastopexy: a single-site study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:67–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Hammond DC, O’Connor EA. The lower island flap transposition (LIFT) technique for control of the upper pole in circumvertical mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:655–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ribeiro L, Accorsi A, Buss A, Marcal-Pessoa M. Creation and evolution of 30 years of the inferior pedicle in reduction mammaplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:960–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hoffman S. Some thoughts on augmentation/mastopexy and medical malpractice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1892–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nahai F, Fisher J, Maxwell GP, Mills DC II. Augmentation mastopexy: to stage or not. Aesthet Surg J. 2007;27:297–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Spears SL. Augmentation mastopexy: “surgeon beware”. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:905–6.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stevens WG, Macias LH, Spring M, Stoker DA, Chacón CO, Eberlin SA. One-stage augmentation mastopexy: a review of 1192 simultaneous augmentation and mastopexy procedures in 615 consecutive cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:723–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Calobrace MB, Herdt DR, Cothron KJ. Simultaneous augmentation/mastopexy: a retrospective 5-year review of 332 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:145–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tessone A, Millet E, Weissman O, et al. Evading a surgical pitfall: mastopexy-augmentation made simple. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2011;35:1073–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lee MR, Unger JG, Adams WP. The tissue-based triad: a process approach to augmentation mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:215–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Persoff MM. Mastopexy with expansion-augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2003;23:34–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Spring MA, Macias LH, Nadeau M, Stevens WG. Secondary augmentation-mastopexy: indications, preferred practices, and the treatment of complications. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(7):1018–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Williams C, Aston S, Rees TD. The effect of hematoma on the thickness of pseudosheaths around silicone implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975;56(2):194–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hvilsom GB, Hölmich LR, Henriksen TF, Lipworth L, JK ML, Friis S. Local complications after cosmetic breast augmentation: results from the Danish Registry for plastic surgery of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:919–25.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ransjo U, Asplund O, Gylbert L, Jurell G. Bacteria in the female breast. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;19:87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Spears SL, Howard MA, Boehmler JH, Ducic I, Low M, Abbruzzesse MR. The infected or exposed breast implant: management and treatment strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1634–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Spears SL, Seruya M. Management of the infected or exposed breast prosthesis: a single surgeon’s 15-year experience with 69 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1074–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sforza M, Andjelkov K, Husein R, Zaccheddu R. Will 1-stage implant salavage after periporsthetic breast infection ever be routine? A 6-year successful experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:1172–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Mofid MM, Klatsky SA, Singh NK, Nahabedian MY. Nipple-areola complex sensitivity after primary breast augmentation: a comparison of periareolar and inframmary incision approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:1694–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Okwueze MI, Spear ME, Zwyghuizen AM, Braün SA, Ajmal N, Nanney LB, et al. Effect of augmentation mammoplasty on breast sensation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:73–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wong C, Samuel M, Tan B, Song C. Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:1224–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Pollock H. Breast capsular contracture: a retrospective study of textured versus smooth silicone implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;91:123–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Spear SL, Baker JL Jr. Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96(5):1119–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pfeiffer P, Jørgensen S, Kristiansen TB, Jørgensen A, Hölmich LR. Protective effect of topical antibiotics in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(2):629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gryskiewicz JM. Investigation of accolate and singulair for treatment of capsular contracture yields safety concerns. Aesthet Surg J. 2003;23(2):98–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Riccioni G, Bucciarelli T, Mancini B, Di Ilio C, D'Orazio N. Antileukotriene drugs: clinical application, effectiveness and safety. Curr Med Chem. 2007;14(18):1966–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Wan DW, Rohrich RJ. Revisiting the management of capsular contracture in breast augmentation: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:826–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Acellular dermal matrix for reoperative breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:932–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Spears SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33:44–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Collins MS, Miranda RN, Meideros LJ, Silva de Meneses MP, Iyer SP, Butler CE, et al. Characteristics and treatment of advanced breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:41S–50S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Dr. Calobrace has been a speaker and consultant for Mentor, Allergan, and Sientra. He also holds a position on the Sientra Medical Advisory Board. He has no financial disclosures. Dr. Mays is a speaker and consultant for Sientra and Galatea and has no financial disclosures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, CaloSpa and CaloAesthetics Plastic Surgery Center, Louisville, KY, USA

    M. Bradley Calobrace

  2. Gratis Faculty, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

    M. Bradley Calobrace & Chet Mays

  3. Gratis Faculty, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    M. Bradley Calobrace

  4. Private Practice, CaloSpa and CaloAesthetics Plastic Surgery Center, Louisville, KY, USA

    Chet Mays

Authors
  1. M. Bradley Calobrace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chet Mays
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Bradley Calobrace .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Seth R. Thaller

  2. University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA

    Zubin J. Panthaki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Calobrace, M.B., Mays, C. (2022). Augmentation Mammoplasty and Mastopexy. In: Thaller, S.R., Panthaki, Z.J. (eds) Tips and Tricks in Plastic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78028-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78028-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-78027-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-78028-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation