Abstract
Breast augmentation is the most commonly performed procedure worldwide. The process of BA has continued to evolve and improve since its inception in the early 1960s. Not only has implant development radically changed, but the processes surrounding the procedure have become highly sophisticated with defined steps to improve selection and safety, and to minimise complications. The implants of today are more robust in their manufacturing and more predictable in their behaviour than ever before, albeit far from perfect. Our understanding of the interaction between implants and the soft tissue environment of the breast also continues to develop, with greater clarity around issues such as capsular contracture, the role of biofilm, and most recently the consequences of BIA–ALCL. In spite of all these developments, complication rates remain relatively high for this procedure, with secondary surgery becoming increasingly common. The focus of this chapter is to identify the principal causes leading to secondary surgery and importantly the steps and principles required to correct them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Wang C, Luan J, Panayi AC, Orgill DP, Xin M. Complications in breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020671. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020671. PMID: 29643164; PMCID: PMC5898288.
Mallucci PL. 10-year experience using inspira implants: a review with personal anecdote. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144(1S):37S–42S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005948. PMID: 31246759.
Brown MH, Somogyi RB, Aggarwal S. Secondary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(1):119e–35e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002280. PMID: 27348674.
Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, Godinez T, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 10-year Sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4S):20S–8S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004351. PMID: 29595715.
Mallucci P, Branford OA. Design for natural breast augmentation: the ICE principle. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(6):1728–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002230. PMID: 27219229.
Hedén P. Breast augmentation with anatomic, high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants (European experience). In: Spear SL, editor. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011. p. 1322–45.
Tebbetts 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(7):2005–16. PMID: 16327616.
Martin del Yerro JL, Vegas MR, Sanz I, Moreno E, Fernandez V, Puga S, Vecino MG, Biggs TM. Breast augmentation with anatomic implants: a method based on the breast implantation base. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2014;38(2):329–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0190-5. Epub 2013 Sep 4. PMID: 24002490.
Mallucci P, Branford OA. Concepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: analysis of the ideal breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(1):8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.08.006. Epub 2011 Aug 24. PMID: 21868295.
Mallucci P, Branford OA. Population analysis of the perfect breast: a morphometric analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(3):436–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000485. PMID: 25158703.
Adams WP Jr, Culbertson EJ, Deva AK, Magnusson MR, Layt C, Jewell ML, Mallucci P, Hedén P. Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(3):427–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003575. PMID: 28841597.
Nava MB, Rancati A, Angrigiani C, Catanuto G, Rocco N. How to prevent complications in breast augmentation. Gland Surg. 2017;6(2):210–7. https://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2017.04.02. PMID: 28497025; PMCID: PMC5409896.
Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP, Murphy DK. Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35(2):145–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sju084. Erratum in: Aesthet Surg J. 2015 Nov;35(8):1044. PMID: 25717116; PMCID: PMC4399443.
Spear SL, Murphy DK, Allergan Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Core Clinical Study Group. Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(6):1354–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000021. PMID: 24867717; PMCID: PMC4819531.
Hammond DC, Canady JW, Love TR, Wixtrom RN, Caplin DA. Mentor contour profile gel implants: clinical outcomes at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(6):1142–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003846. PMID: 29176413.
Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33(3):440–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9364-6. Epub 2009 May 13. Erratum in: Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009 May;33(3):439. PMID: 19437068.
Maxwell GP, Birchenough SA, Gabriel A. Efficacy of neopectoral pocket in revisionary breast surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(5):379–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2009.08.012. PMID: 19825466.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mallucci, P., Bistoni, G. (2022). Algorithm for Secondary Aesthetic Breast Surgery. In: de Vita, R. (eds) Aesthetic Breast Augmentation Revision Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86793-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86793-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86792-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86793-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)