Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Layered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Modification for Lower Pole Safety and Stability

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

Abstract

Background

Single-stage mastopexy with augmentation is a commonly performed procedure. The single-stage procedure can be performed in primary cases or a secondary procedure in patients with previous history of augmentation, mastopexy or mastopexy with augmentation. The procedure is challenging and not without its risks.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all consecutive cases of layered mastopexy with augmentation mammoplasties, carried out from September 2015 to August 2019, was performed. All patients had their implants placed in muscle splitting pocket first and access for the pocket was closed prior to the commencement of mastopexy.

Results

During the period of 4 years, 102 consecutive layered mastopexy with augmentations were performed in muscle splitting plane. Of these 102 patients, 74 (72.5%) patients had it as a primary and 28 (27.5%) as a secondary procedure. Of these 102 patients, 53 (52.0%) had textured, 37 (36.3%) had smooth and 12 (11.8%) had microtextured implants and 72 (70.6%) patients had high profile and 30 (29.4%) had medium profile implants. Same size implant was used in 89 patients with a mean of 298 cc, and 13 patients had different size implants with a mean of 362 cc on the right and 395 cc on the left. In current study, bilateral periareolar, vertical scar cat’s tail and Wise pattern mastopexies were performed in 11, 51 and 27 patients, respectively. Of the 102 patients, 5 had unilateral right periareolar, 5 unilateral right vertical scar cat’s tail, 2 unilateral left periareolar and 1 patient had a combination of periareolar and vertical scar combination. There was no nipple loss or periprosthetic infection. There was a minor wound breakdown seen in 4 (3.9%), haematoma in 2 (2.1%), nipple sensation loss in 2 (2.1%) and 12 (11.8%) had layered mastopexy as a part of a combined procedure. Revision was performed in 6 (6.5%), drains were used in 14 (13.7%), and 92 (90.2%) had the procedure performed as a day case.

Conclusion

Layered mastopexy with augmentation is a safe procedure with added stability and safety to lower pole of the breast as well as nipple-areolar complex.

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 Authorswww.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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bostwick J (1990) Prophylactic (risk-reducing) mastectomy and reconstruction. Plastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Vol II. St Loius: Quality Medical Publishing pp 1369–73.

  2. Ladzinsky DA, Sandholm PH, Jewett ST, Shahzad F, Khalil A (2013) Breast reconstruction with Botswick autoderm technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:261–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Spear S (2003) Augmentation/Mastopexy: “Surgeon Beware.” Plast Reconstr Surg 112:905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Spear SL, Pelliere CV, Menon N (2004) One-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy: aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. Aesth Plast Surg 28:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wise RJ (1956) A preliminary report of a method of planning the mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 17:367–375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Karacaoglu E (2009) Single stage augmentation mastopexy: a novel technique using autologous dermal graft. Ann Plast Surg 63(6):600–604

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Steinbacher DM, Singh N, Katz R et al (2010) Augmentation-mastopexy using an autologous parenchymal sling. Aesth Plast Surg 34:664–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Forcada EM, Fernandez MC, Aso JV, Iglesis IP (2014) Augmentation mastopexy: maximal reduction and stable implant coverage using four flaps. Aesth Plast Surg 38(4):711–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vita RD, Zoccali G, Buccheri EM (2017) The balcony technique of breast augmentation and inverted-T mastopexy with an inferior dermoglandular flap. Aesthet Surg J 37:1114–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lang Stumpfle R, Piccinini PS, Pereira-Lima LF, Valiati AA (2019) Muscle-splitting augmentation-mastopexy: implant protection with an inferior dermoglandular flap. Ann Plast Surg 82(2):137–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mansur AEC, Graf RM, Fdul R Jr, Priscilla B, Nasser IG et al (2020) Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy: an innovative anatomical approach-the fascioglandular flap for improved lower pole support. Aesth Plast Surg 44(5):1414–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Asplund OA, Davies DM (1996) Vertical scar breast reduction with medial flap or glandular transposition of the nipple-areola. Br J Plast Surg 49:507–514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hall-Findlay EJ (2002) Vertical breast reduction with a medially-based pedicle. Aesth Surg J 22:185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Khan UD (2012) Vertical scar mastopexy with cat’s tail extension for prevention of skin redundancy. an experience with 17 consecutive cases following mastopexy and mastopexy with breast augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 36:303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Spring MA, Macias LH, Nadeau SG (2014) Secondary augmentation-mastopexy: indications, preferred practices, and the treatment of complications. Aesthet Surg J 34:1018–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis:definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 3:193–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gonzalez-Ulloa M (1960) Correction of hypertrophy of the breast by exogenous material. Plast Reconstr Surg 25:15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Regnault P (1966) The Hypoplastic and ptotic breast; a combined operation with prosthetic augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 37:31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stevens WG, Macias LH, Stoker DA, Chacon CO, Eberlin SA (2014) One-stage augmentation mammoplasty: a review of 1192 simultaneous breast augmentation and mastopexy procedures in 615 consecutives patients. Aesthet Surg J 34:723–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Calobrace MB, Herdt DR, Cothron KJ (2013) Simultaneous augmentation/Mastopexy: a retrospective 5-year review of 332 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:145–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Swanson E (2013) Prospective comparative clinical evaluation of 784 consecutive of breast augmentation and vertical mammoplasty performed individually and in a combination. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:30e–45e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Khan UD (2015) Use of Nipple Areolar Complex to Inframammary Crease Measurements to Reduce Bottoming Out After Augmentation Mastopexy. Mugea TT, Schifmann MA(eds) Aesthetic Surgery of the Brest, 1st Edn. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 649-656

  26. Spear SL, Boehmler JH, Clemens MW (2006) Augmentation/Mastopexy: a 3-year review of a single surgeon’s practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:136S-147S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Karnes J, Morrison W, Salisbury M, Schaeferle M, Beckham P, Ersek RE (2000) Simultaneous breast augmentation and lift. Aesth Plast Surg 24:148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mestak J, SukopA MO (2011) Use of deepithelialized flap in mammoplasties: simple method with excellent results. Aesth Plast Surg 35:1106–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Baxter RA (2005) Subfascialbreast augmentation:theme and variation. Aesth Plast Surg 25:447–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rigo MH, Piccinini PS, S LDP, Carvalho LAR, Uebel CO (2020) SMS-Split Muscle Support: a reproducible approach for breast implant stabilization. Aesth Plast Surg 44:698–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cheffe MR, Valentini JD, Collares MVM, Piccinini PS, Da Silva JLB (2018) Quantifying dynamic deformity after dual plane breast augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 42(3):716–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

I am thankful to Dr Unzela Rahmatullah MD and Dr Iffat Shah MD for their assistance in manuscript preparation.

Funding

Author has not received research funding for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    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 they have no conflict of interests.

Informed Consent

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

Ethical Standards

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.

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. Layered Mastopexy with Augmentation in Muscle Splitting Biplane: A Modification for Lower Pole Safety and Stability. Aesth Plast Surg 46, 143–151 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02507-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02507-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation