Advertisement

European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 5, pp 273–280 | Cite as

Review of implant sizes in 146 consecutive asymmetrical augmentation mammoplasties

  • Umar Daraz Khan
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

Breast and chest asymmetries have been reported with varying incidences in patients requesting augmentation mammoplasty. However, there is a paucity of information regarding the sizes of different implants used, their relative distribution on either side, complications and revision rates in this cohort when compared with primary augmentation mammoplasty using similar size implants.

Methods

A retrospective data using the Excel spreadsheet was performed. All patients had muscle splitting technique for augmentation mammoplasty in asymmetrical breasts. Patients requiring augmentation with mastopexy, sternal notch to nipple areolar complex level discrepancy of more than 1 cm, and patients having same size implants were excluded from the analysis. Insignificant asymmetries, not noticed by patients, were not chosen for two different size implants. Patients, who chose two different size implants for mammoplasty, were divided into three groups based on the relative difference in the size of different implants used.

Results

A total of 164 patients had primary augmentation mammoplasty between 2005 and 2011, using two different size implants for augmentation mammoplasty in asymmetrical breasts. Mean age of the patients (n = 164) was 29.2 ± 7.79 years (range 18–50), and 46 (28.0 %) were smokers. Complete data on differential implant sizes used was available in 146 patients. Mean size of the implant on the right (n = 146) was 346.27 ± 70.581 cc (range 220–605). The mean size of the implant on the left (n = 146) was 333.46 ± 74.419 cc (range 200–655). Out of these 146 patients, 46 (31.5 %) patients had larger implants on the left as compared to 100 (68.5 %) patients on the right. Mean volume difference between the two sides when larger implants were used on left side was 55.76 ± 37.785 cc as compared to 44.35 ± 26.166 cc when larger implants were used on the right side. Low profile combination was used in 2.73 %, moderate size implant combination was used in 9.58 %, mixed profile combination was used in 3.42 % and high profile combination was used in 84.24 % of the patients. Overall revision surgery was performed in three patients (1.8 %), and out of these three revisions, only one (0.6 %) patient needed surgery for volume correction.

Conclusions

Primary augmentation mammoplasty in asymmetrical breasts using differential size implants is a procedure with low revision rates, provided that strict exclusion criteria are used along with adequate informed consent in this group.

Level of Evidence: Level IV, risk/prognostic study.

Keywords

Breast asymmetries Chest asymmetries Mammoplasty in asymmetrical breasts Muscle splitting breast augmentation 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

All patients gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Khan UD (2011) Breast and chest asymmetries: classification and relative distribution of common asymmetries in patients requesting augmentation mammoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 34:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koch MC et al (2011) Breast volumetry using a three-dimensional surface assessment technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:847–855Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gabriel A, Fritzsche S, Creasmen C, Baqai W, Mordaunt D, Maxwell P (2011) Incidence of breast and chest wall asymmetries: 4D photography. Aesthet Surg J 31:506–510Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gore SM, Lamberty GH (2012) PERTHESE implant-identical cohesive-gel sizers in breast augmentation: a prospective report on 200 consecutive cases and implications for treatment of breast asymmetry. Aesthet Surg J 32:310–318Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maxwell GP (2001) Breast asymmetry. Aesthet Surg J 21:552–561Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker H (2000) Adjustable breast implants provide postoperative versatility. Aesthet Surg J 20:332–334Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Khan UD (2013) The impact of preoperative breast implant size selection on the three year reoperation rate. Eur J Plast Surg 36(8):503–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cunningham B (2007) The Mentor Core Study on silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:19–29SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reilly AF (2006) Breast asymmetry: classification and management. Aesthet Surg J 26:596–600Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arco A, Gravante G, Araco F, Gentile P, Castri F, Delagu D, Fillingeri V, Cervelli V (2006) Breast asymmetries: a brief review and our experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg 30:309–319Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan UD (2009) Breast augmentation in asymmetrically placed nipple areolar complex in horizontal axis: lateralisation of implant pocket to offset lateralised nipples. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:591–596Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rohrich RJ, Hartley W, Brown S (2005) Incidence of breast and chest all asymmetry in breast augmentation: a retrospective analysis of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 48:229–237Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neto MS, da Silva ALA L, Garcia EB, Freire M, Ferreira L (2007) Quality of life and self-esteem after breast asymmetry surgery. Aesthet Surg J 27:616–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting breast augmentation. A new pocket in a different plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:553–558Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khan UD (2013) Muscle splitting, subglandular and partial submuscular augmentation mammoplasties: 12-year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 37:290–302Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reshape HouseKentUK

Personalised recommendations