The impact of preoperative breast implant size selection on the 3-year reoperation rate
- 223 Downloads
Revision surgery following primary augmentation mammoplasty is commonly performed. There are several long-term and short-term published studies on the incidence of revisionary surgery in primary mammoplasties. The current study is a single surgeon’s experience with reoperations following consecutively performed primary augmentation mammoplasties and an assessment of the role of the process of breast augmentation. A retrospective data analysis was performed to evaluate a single surgeon’s 3-year reoperation rate in primary augmentation mammoplasties.
A retrospective analysis of data using the Excel Spread was performed. Data of patients having had consecutive primary augmentation mammoplasties, performed between January 2008 and December 2010, were collected to evaluate the efficacy of a structured process of primary augmentation mammoplasties and its impact on a 3-year reoperation rate. Patients with asymmetrical breast or chest requiring different size implants were excluded. Patients presenting with ptosis requiring mastopexy in primary augmentation mammoplasty were also excluded from the study.
A total of 507 primary bilateral augmentation mammoplasties were performed by the author between January 2008 and December 2010. All patients had muscle splitting biplane technique and all had round silicone cohesive gel silicone implants during the study period. All implants were inserted using inframammary crease incision. Mean size of implant in primary augmentation mammoplasty was 346.9 cc (range 200–700). Data showed 10 (1.97 %) patients had a reoperation following primary augmentation mammoplasty.
This retrospective study showed a low 3-year reoperation rate. A clear understanding of the process of breast augmentation, good informed consent and careful selection of implant size in primary and revision augmentation mammoplasty can potentially reduce reoperations.
Level of Evidence: Level IV, Prognostic/risk study.
KeywordsPrimary augmentation mammoplasty Secondary augmentation mammoplasty Round cohesive gel silicone implants
Conflict of interest
- 2.Bengston BP, Van Nata BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP (2007) Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(7 Suppl 1):40S–48SGoogle Scholar
- 4.Mentor Corporation (2000) Saline-filled breast implant surgery, making an informed decision. Mentor Corp., Santa Barbara, pp 11–19Google Scholar
- 12.Nahi et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1301–1313Google Scholar
- 13.Khan UD (2013) Subglandular, partial submuscular and muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasties. A twelve year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary augmentation mammoplasties using three different techniques by a single surgeon. Aesthetic Plast Surg. doi: 10.1007/s0026-012-0026-8