Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisionary Surgery Following Primary Augmentation Mammoplasty in Muscle Splitting Biplane Pocket: An Appraisal of 93 Revisionary Surgeries

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

Abstract

Background

Muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty is the creation of a submuscular pocket which is gaining attention and acceptance by plastic surgeons worldwide. First introduced in 2007, muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty has since been used for primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasty and augmentation mastopexy procedures. A personal experience of revision surgeries following muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty is presented.

Methods

A retrospective data analysis for revision surgeries, following muscle splitting primary augmentation mammoplasties, performed between October 2005 and October 2018 was carried out.

Results

A total of 1511 primary augmentation mammoplasties were performed. Of these 1511 patients, 93 (6.1%) patients had revisionary or secondary surgery. The mean age of the patients was 33.8 + 9 years (range 20–60). Of the 93 patients, 78 patients had same size implants, mean 337 cc + 53.5 (range 230–495), and 14 had different size implants. Of these 14 patients, mean implant size on right and left was 331 cc + 59.4 (range 225–425) and 351 cc + 61.7 (range 260–450), respectively. Of the recorded texturing in 1495 patients, only 3.1% had smooth implants. Leading causes for revision were implant exchange for various reasons, in 33 (35.4%); 25 (26.8%) wanted larger implants, revisionary surgery for capsular contracture in 18 (19.3%), implant rupture was seen in 9 (9.6%), 4 (4.3%) patients had surgery for recurrent back-to-front flipping, 2 (2.1%) patients wanted a smaller size, 1 (1.07%) patient had fold flaw failure, and in 1 (1.07%) the cause was not recorded. There were no haematoma and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA ALCL) recorded in the series.

Conclusion

The incidence of revisionary surgery following muscle splitting primary augmentation mammoplasty is acceptable and can be corrected using the described techniques.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting breast augmentation: a new pocket in a different plane. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:553–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Regnault P (1977) Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:72

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Khan UD (2013) Muscle splitting, subglandular and partial submuscular augmentation mammoplasties: a 12 year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 37(2):290–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Khan UD (2010) Augmentation mastopexy in muscle-splitting biplane: an outcome of first 44 consecutive cases of mastopexies in a new pocket. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan UD (2011) Multiplane technique for simultaneous submuscular breast augmentation and internal glandulopexy using inframammary crease in selected patients with early ptosis. Eur J Plast Surg 34:337–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan UD (2018) One-stage mastopexy and augmentation mammoplasty in layers: outcome analysis of first 50 consecutive cases. Plast Aesthet Res 5:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stodell M, McArthur G, James M (2016) Bi-plane breast augmentation: a case series supporting its use and benefits. Plast Aesthet Res 3:17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stumpfle RL, Pereira-Lima LF, Valiati AA, Da Mazzini GS (2012) Transaxillary muscle splitting breast augmentation: experience with 160 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:343–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baxter RA (2005) Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variation. Aesthet Surg J 25:447–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan UD (2009) Acquired synmastia following subglandular mammoplasty and the use of submuscular splitting biplane for its correction. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:605–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khan UD (2010) Combining muscle splitting biplane with multilayer capsuloraphy for the correction of bottoming down following subglandular augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg 33:259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan UD (2015) Subglandular to muscle splitting biplane conversion for revision augmentation mammoplasty. In: Mugea TT, Shiffman MA (eds) Aesthetic surgery of breast, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 535–541

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Baxter RA (2011) Update on the split-muscle technique for breast augmentation: prevention and correction of animation distortion and double bubble deformity. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:353–360

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khan UD (2012) High transverse capsuloplasty for the correction of malpositioned implants following augmentation mammoplasty in partial submuscular plane. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:590–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tebbet JB (2001) Dual-plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft tissue relationship in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Spear SL, Scwartz J, Dayan JH et al (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan UD (2019) Muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty: a 13-year outcome analysis of 1511 primary augmentation mammoplasties. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01468-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Khan UD (2016) A long term review of augmentation mastopexy in muscle splitting biplane. Plast Aesthet Res 3:21–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Khan UD (2016) Augmentation mastopexy and augmentation mammoplasty: an analysis of 1,406 consecutive cases. Plast Aesthet Res 3:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saleh DB, Callear J, Riaz M (2016) An anatomic appraisal of biplane muscle-splitting breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 36(9):1019–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R et al (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nigro LC, Blanchet NP (2017) Animation deformity in postmastectomy implant based reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:e1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dyrberg DL, Camilla B, Gunnarsson GL et al (2019) Breast animation deformity. Arch Plast Surg 46:7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Alnaif N, Safran T, Alex Viezel-Mathieu, Alhalabi B, Dionisopoulos T (2019) Treatment of breast animation deformity: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72:781–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM et al (2018) Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant-associated animation deformity: a review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthet Surg J 38(5):519–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown T (2012) Subfascial breast augmentation: is there any advantage over the submammary plane? Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(3):566–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Khan UD, Riaz M (2015) Use of multiplane internal mastopexy for ptosis correction revision augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Aesthet Res 2:120–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan UD (2013) The impact of preoperative breast implant selection on the 3-year reoperation rate. Eur J Plast Surg 36:503–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tebbets JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive case augmentation mammoplasty premarket study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1453–1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Khan UD (2017) Low risk primary augmentation mammoplasty and capsular contracture using textured round cohesive silicone gel implants revisited. A long term follow up in a single surgeon’s practice. Pak J Plast Surg 5:6–19

    Google Scholar 

  32. Khan UD (2011) Back to front flipping of implants following augmentation mammoplasty and the role of physical characteristics in a round cohesive gel silicone breast implant. retrospective analysis of 3458 breast implants by a single surgeon. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:125–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Author has not received research funding for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reshape Clinic, Reshape House, 2-4 High Street, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6QR, England

    Umar Daraz Khan

Authors
  1. Umar Daraz Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umar Daraz Khan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in the 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.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, U.D. Revisionary Surgery Following Primary Augmentation Mammoplasty in Muscle Splitting Biplane Pocket: An Appraisal of 93 Revisionary Surgeries. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 462–471 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01580-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01580-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation