Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 353–360 | Cite as

Dynamic Breasts: A Common Complication Following Partial Submuscular Augmentation and its Correction Using the Muscle-Splitting Biplane Technique

  • Umar Daraz KhanEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Dynamic breast deformity following partial submuscular augmentation is not uncommon. The complication is due primarily to the release of the pectoralis and the true incidence of this complication is not known. The submuscular biplane pocket is a new pocket and is used to correct dynamic breasts following augmentation mammaplasty in the partial submuscular plane.

Methods

After the first submuscular biplane muscle-splitting augmentation mammaplasty in October 2005, the author has performed 58 secondary augmentation mammaplasties for various reasons. Of these, nine patients showed marked dynamic breast deformity following partial submuscular augmentation and the submuscular muscle-splitting biplane was used to correct this complication.

Results

Good to excellent results were achieved in all patients with complete elimination of the dynamic breast deformity.

Conclusion

The submuscular biplane is a new and versatile pocket and is used to correct dynamic breast deformity seen following partial submuscular augmentation mammaplasty.

Keywords

Partial submuscular augmentation Dual plane Submuscular biplane augmentation Dynamic breast Panniculus carnosus 

References

  1. 1.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:353–358Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Last RJ (1978) Anatomy regional and applied, 6th edn. Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, pp 65–66Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cronin TD, Gerow RM (1964) Augmentation mammoplasty: new “Natural Feel” prosthesis. In: Translation of the 3rd international congress of the pplastic surgery. Excerpta Medica International Congress Series, No. 66. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 41–49Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dempsey WC, Latham WD (1968) Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammoplasty: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 42:515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Regnault P (1977) Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biggs TM, Yarish RS (1990) Augmentation mammoplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationship in a wide range of breast type. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baxter RA (2005) Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variation. Aesth Surg J 25:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khan UD (2009) Autoinflation with sterile pus as a marker of implant rupture: single stage treatment and outcome of five consecutive cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Last RJ (1978) Anatomy regional and applied, 6th edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 3Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Last RJ (1978) Anatomy regional and applied, 6th edn. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Belvedere Private HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations