Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current practises in primary breast augmentation: a continental European vs UK primary survey

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

Abstract

Background

Breast augmentation has gained widespread popularity since its inception. During recent decades, several techniques have developed. Debates concerning the superiority of a particular technique for achievement of optimal results exist. In this primary survey, we evaluate a selection of UK and European Aesthetic surgeons for their preferred techniques and practises of breast augmentation and the influence of patient choice on their favoured surgical approach.

Methods

A 10-item questionnaire was sent to 715 European Aesthetic Surgeons by e-mail with a cover letter including the link using SurveyMonkey©. Contact details were obtained from respective national registries. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 20.

Results

One hundred aesthetic surgeons from Europe including Greece, Italy, UK, Switzerland, Denmark, Malta and Ireland made up the respondents. Of the 27 surgeons practicing in the UK, the majority (96.4 %) use the inframammary approach, with a single respondent from UK indicating preference for the periareolar incision. However, of the 68 surgeons outside the UK, including Ireland and Continental Europe, a significant proportion (28.4 %) utilise the periareolar incision. Majority of the UK surgeons (56 %) place the breast implant in the subglandular plane whilst in Continental Europe, the preference in 50 % of the responders is for the dual plane pocket (p = 0.016). Most patients (54.3 %) express a preference for a certain incision with surgeons tending to comply with patients’ wishes. When they do not, it is mostly due to unrealistic patient expectations (in 63.3 % of cases). The duration of oral antibiotics varies from 2 days (5.2 % of responders) to 1 week (25.9 % of responders).

Conclusions

UK aesthetic surgeons prefer the inframammary incision and subglandular plane compared with alternative approaches undertaken by other Continental European counterparts. There remains an unestablished common approach for primary breast augmentation. In the current climate of division with UK leaving Europe, there remains a need for multiple Aesthetic Surgery Societies to collaborate, in order to produce robust multicentred data.

Level of Evidence: Not ratable.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH (2013) Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(9):1165–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Reece EM, Ghavami A, Hoxworth RE, Alvarez SA, Hatef DA, Brown S et al (2014) Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns. Aesthet Surg J 29(2):116–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Naidu NS, Patrick PA (2011) The influence of career stage, practice type and location, and physician’s sex on surgical practices among board-certified plastic surgeons performing breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 31(8):941–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(5):1255–1272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting breast augmentation. A new pocket in a different Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:553–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan UD (2009) Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using muscle splitting biplane technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:353–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan UD (2013) Muscle splitting, subglandular and partial submuscular augmentation mammoplasties. A twelve year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37(2):290–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiener TC (2007) The role of Betadine irrigation in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 119(1):12–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Khan UD (2010) Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis and infection: comparative analysis of 1628 primary augmentation mammoplasties to assess the role and efficacy of length of antibiotic prophylaxis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:42–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gutteridge E, Holden S, Clarkson A. Guideline for antibiotic prophylaxis within breast surgery for adult Ms Gutteridge ( consultant breast surgeon ) Dr Stephen Holden ( consultant microbiologist ) Annette Clarkson ( specialist pharmacist antimicrobials and infection control ) cancer and ass. 2013 p. 1–5.

  11. Ng D, Trivedi PM, Sharma AK, Banerjee D (2007) Current use of antibiotic prophylaxis in breast surgery: a nationwide survey. Breast 16(1):68–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Throckmorton AD, Boughey JC, Boostrom SY, Holifield AC, Stobbs MM, Hoskin T et al (2009) Postoperative prophylactic antibiotics and surgical site infection rates in breast surgery patients. Ann Surg Oncol 16(9):2464–2469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Throckmorton AD, Hoskin T, Boostrom SY, Boughey JC, Holifield AC, Stobbs MM et al (2009) Complications associated with postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis after breast surgery. Am J Surg 198(4):553–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McGowan JE (2014) Cost and benefit of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis: methods for economic analysis. Rev Infect Dis 13(Suppl 1):S879–S889

    Google Scholar 

  15. Acuna SA, Angarita FA, Escallon J, Tawil M, Torregrosa L (2012) Determining the use of prophylactic antibiotics in breast cancer surgeries: a survey of practice. BMC Surg 12:18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hauck RM, Nogan S (2013) The use of prophylactic antibiotics in plastic surgery: update in 2010. Ann Plast Surg 70(1):91–97

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20(4):250–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Codina C, Trilla A, Riera N, Tuset M, Carne X, Ribas J et al (1999) Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in Spanish hospitals: results of a questionnaire survey. Hospital pharmacy antimicrobial prophylaxis study group. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20(6):436–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Felippe WAB, Werneck GL, Santoro-Lopes G (2007) Surgical site infection among women discharged with a drain in situ after breast cancer surgery. World J Surg 31(12):2293–2299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bunn F, Jones DJ, Bell-Syer S (2012) Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection after breast cancer surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD005360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic Surgery Department, Royal Preston Hospital, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sharoe Green Lane North, Preston, Lancashire, PR2 9HT, UK

    Ishan Radotra, Obi Onyekwelu, Kanellos Gesakis & Jeyaram Srinivasan

  2. 8 Tresta Close, Shrewsbury, SY3 6AJ, UK

    Ishan Radotra

Authors
  1. Ishan Radotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Obi Onyekwelu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kanellos Gesakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeyaram Srinivasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ishan Radotra.

Ethics declarations

Ethical standards

For this kind of article approval from a local ethics committee is not required.

Conflict of interest

Ishan Radotra, Obi Onyekwelu, Kanellos Gesakis, Jeyaram Srinivasan declare that they have no conflict of interest

Funding

None.

Additional information

This work has been presented during the 2014 British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons Annual Scientific Meeting

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Radotra, I., Onyekwelu, O., Gesakis, K. et al. Current practises in primary breast augmentation: a continental European vs UK primary survey. Eur J Plast Surg 40, 213–222 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-016-1253-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-016-1253-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation