European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 8, pp 503–510 | Cite as

The impact of preoperative breast implant size selection on the 3-year reoperation rate

  • Umar Daraz Khan
Original Paper



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.


Primary augmentation mammoplasty Secondary augmentation mammoplasty Round cohesive gel silicone implants 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammoplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1453–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Heden P, Bone B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2006) Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1281–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mentor Corporation (2000) Saline-filled breast implant surgery, making an informed decision. Mentor Corp., Santa Barbara, pp 11–19Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cunningham B (2007) The Mentor Core Study on Silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:19–29SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams WP Jr (2008) The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1892–1900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jewell ML, Jewell JL (2010) A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30(1):51–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zambacos GJ, Nguyen D, Morris RJ (2004) Effect of povidone iodine on silicone gel breast implants in vitro: implications for clinical practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:706–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weiner TC (2007) The role of betadine irrigation in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:12–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan UD (2012) Secondary augmentation mammoplasties and periprosthetic infection. A three year retrospective review of 92 secondary mammoplasties performed by a single surgeon. Aesthet Surg J 32:465–4733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kjoller K, Holmich LR, Jacobsen PH, Friis S, Fryzek J, McLaughlin JK, Lipworth L, Henrikson TF, Jorgensen S, Bittmann S, Olsen JH (2002) Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 48:229–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nahi et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1301–1313Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Khan UD (2010) Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infection: comparative analysis of 1,628 primary augmentation mammoplasties assessing the role and efficacy of antibiotics prophylaxis duration. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan UD (2011) Augmentation mammoplasty in breasts with port-wine stains. Are these patients at increased risk of haematoma? Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:130–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA (2006) A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:757–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting breast augmentation. A new pocket in a different plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:553–558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Re-Shape ClinicWestmalling KentUK

Personalised recommendations