One-Stage Augmentation Combined with Mastopexy: Aesthetic Results and Patient Satisfaction
- 669 Downloads
Since the original descriptions by Gonzales-Ulloa in 1960 and Regnault in 1966, breast augmentation in combination with mastopexy has remained a difficult, and often polarizing, topic in plastic surgery, not only because of its results but also because of its litany of potential complications. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in the discussion of one-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy throughout the literature. However, a critical analysis of the aesthetic results, as well as patient satisfaction with the procedure, continues to be absent. Because there have not been any reported studies on the aesthetic results or patient satisfaction with augmentation and mastopexy, we undertook this retrospective review in an attempt answer a fundamental question: is one-stage breast augmentation combined with mastopexy aesthetically and functionally worthwhile for both the physician and patient? All 34 patients reviewed for this retrospective study underwent bilateral, one-stage breast augmentation and mastopexy between April 1996 and December 2002. Patient charts were reviewed for a number of parameters including previous breast surgery, degree of preoperative ptosis, type of mastopexy used, size and type of implants placed, implant position, postoperative complications, and any revision surgeries performed. Patient photographs were evaluated by observers blinded to the study, and patients were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire. Ptosis was graded according to the Regnault classification. As a result, 14 women had grade 1 ptosis (41%), fourteen had grade 2 ptosis (41%), one had grade 3 ptosis (3%), two had pseudoptosis (6%), and two had tuberous breasts (6%). The grade of ptosis in one patient was not defined. The patient complication rate was 8.8% (3 patients). For the aesthetic rating scale, preoperative and postoperative photographs taken after more than 1 year were evaluated. On the scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent), overall ptosis correction was rated as 3.4, asymmetry correction as 3.4, postoperative breast symmetry as 3.2, scar quality as 3.3, breast shape as 3.1, nipple/areola size as 2.9, and overall result as 3. Only 13 of the 34 patients were available for completion of the satisfaction survey. Evaluation of the 13 patient satisfaction surveys showed that, on the average, the patients were satisfied with the various aspects of their surgery. The average overall result and surgical goals both were 3.1. However, 54% of the patients (n = 7) desired revision surgery for various reasons, the most common being a desire for more breast lift. A review of the patients and results, brought a number of issues to light. First, aesthetic results for augmentation and mastopexy truly depend on a number of different factors that must work in harmony to yield an excellent result. Second, what is aesthetically pleasing to the surgeon may not be pleasing to the patient, and vice versa. Third, although the patient aesthetic results were good, they were not consistently rated as excellent, nor were the patients totally satisfied with their outcomes. This perhaps reflects the more complex nature of both the patient’s problems and the surgical procedure itself. Finally, although the overall results of one-stage breast augmentation and mastopexy are good, and the patients generally are satisfied, this study raises the question whether staging the surgery by performing the mastopexy first may not yield significantly better results than the combined simultaneous procedure.
KeywordsAugmentation Mastopexy Breast augmentation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Benelli, LC 1990A new periareolar mammaplasty: The “round block” techniqueAesthl Plast Surg1493Google Scholar
- 3.la Fuente, A, Martin Yerro, JL 1992Periareolar mastopexy with mammary implantsAesth Plast Surg16337Google Scholar
- 7.Owsley, JQ,Jr 1975Simultaneous mastopexy and augmentation for correction of the small, ptotic breastAnn Plast Surg.2Google Scholar
- 9.Puckett, CL, Meyer, VH, Reinisch, JF 1985Crescent mastopexy and augmentationPlast Reconstr Surg75533Google Scholar
- 10.Regnault, P 1976Breast ptosis: Definition and treatmentClinl Plast Surg.3Google Scholar
- 13.Spear, SL, Beckenstein, M 1998Periareolar approach to augmentation mastopexySpear, SL eds. Surgery of the breast: Principles and artLippincott-RavenPhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 14.Spear, SL, Davison, SP 2000Breast augmentation with periareolar mastopexyOper Tech Plast Reconstr Surg7131Google Scholar
- 17.Spear, SL, Kassan, M, Little, JW 1990Guidelines in concentric mastopexyPlast Reconstr Suref85961Google Scholar