Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 178–184 | Cite as

Optimizing Outcomes in Breast Augmentation: Seven Years of Experience with the Subfascial Plane

  • João Carlos Sampaio GóesEmail author
  • Alan Landecker
Article

Abstract

Introduction: Breast augmentation has enjoyed worldwide acceptance in the last few decades. In order to optimize the outcomes of this operation, numerous variables such as incision location, pocket plane, implant design, and materials, and individual tissue characteristics must be carefully considered. Although no combination of choices may be considered superior, satisfactory results depend on adjusting the available options to each patient’s requirements. In this paper, the authors present a seven-year experience with augmentation mammaplasty using the subfascial plane, analyzing important aspects of surgical technique, benefits and trade-offs when compared to other approaches, and the resulting outcomes. Method: A total of 241 primary and secondary breast augmentation procedures were performed over a seven-year period, employing anatomical high-cohesivity gel textured implants (McGhan 410 Style). After choosing the appropriate approach and performing the skin incision, dissection proceeds parallel to the skin (as in skin-sparing mastectomies) for approximately 4 cm. The breast’s parenchyma is then incised in a radial direction (perpendicular to the skin incision) and vertically until the fascial layer is reached. Dissection of the implant’s pocket is then performed in the well-defined subfascial plane. After insertion of the implants, the distance between the areola’s inferior border and the inframammary fold should be approximately equal to 6–7 cm (or X). The distance between the areola’s superior border and the uppermost point of the breast should be approximately equal to 9–10.5 cm (or 1.5X). Another important parameter is the distance between the implants, which should be approximately 2–3 cm. Finally, the distance between the areola’s medial border and the midsternal line should be about 9–10 cm. Postoperative care issues are specified. Results: Pleasing long-term results have been obtained, with maintenance of a natural breast shape, a smooth transition between the soft tissues and implant in the upper pole, and low morbidity. The rate of capsular contracture was extremely low and there were no complaints regarding displacement of the implants with contraction of the pectoralis major muscle. Conclusion: The presented technique offers improved long-term aesthetic results due to the creation of a stronger supporting system for the implant’s superior pole. This tends to keep the implant’s upper third from altering its shape and position over time and combines the potential benefits of the subglandular approach with the improvements that may be achieved by having more tissue available to cover the implant’s upper pole. The trade-offs of the subpectoral approach have been significantly reduced and factors such as morbidity and postoperative recovery are acceptable. The presented technique is extremely versatile and may also be used in patients requiring removal and replacement of breast implants.

Keywords

Mammaplasty Breast augmentation Subfacial plane 

References

  1. 1.
    Barnett, A 1990Transaxillary subpectoral augmentation in the ptotic breast: Augmentation by disruption of the extended pectoral fascia and parenchymal sweep.Plast Reconstr Surg8676Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biggs, TM, Yarish, RS 1988Augmentation mammaplasty: Retropectoral versus retromammary implantation.Clin Plast Surg15549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dempsey, WC, Latham, WD 1968Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammaplasty: Preliminary report.Plast Reconstr Surg42515Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graf, RM,  et al. 2000Subfascial endoscopic transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty.Aesthetic Plast Surg24216Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray, H 1989Gray’s anatomy, 37th edition.Longman Group UK LimitedLondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hidalgo, DA 2000Breast augmentation: Choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane.Plast Reconstr Surg1052202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahler, D, Ben-Yakar, J, Hauben, DJ 1982The retropectoral route for breast augmentation.Aesthetic Plast Surg6237Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papillon, J 1976Pros and cons of subpectoral implantation.Clin Plast Surg3321Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puckett, CL,  et al. 1987A critical look at capsular contracture in subglandular versus subpectoral mammary augmentation.Aesthetic Plast Surg1123Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regnault, P 1977Partially submuscular breast augmentation.Plast Reconstr Surg5972Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tebbetts, JB 1984Transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty: Long-term follow-up and refinements.Plast Reconstr Surg74636Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tebbetts, JB 2001Dual plane breast augmentation: Optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types.Plast Reconstr Surg1071255Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clinica Sampaio Góes, São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations