Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 593–600 | Cite as

“Upside-Down” Augmentation Mastopexy

Innovative Technique

Abstract

Background

The author’s wide experience with postbariatric body contouring pushed him to find a technique suitable for correcting the two most common defects of the massive weight loss (MWL) breast: hypotrophy and ptosis. For these defects, a technique selection algorithm has been created. According to the algorithm, the “upside-down” technique was developed for those cases with a diagnosis of “minor ptosis” (<6 cm of vertical nipple–areolar complex correction).

Methods

The upside-down technique is performed as follows. (1) Complete subcutaneous undermining of the glandular upper pole to the upper edge of the mammary gland is performed. (2) After rotation around the edge, upside-down retroglandular undermining is performed, with great care taken to leave the inframammary fold and 2 cm of the gland undetached. (3) Topside-bottom implant insertion is performed with a “mailbox posting” action. The inframammary fold and the undetached gland act as a bra to prevent implant ptosis. The upper one-third of the prosthesis can be placed beneath the pectoralis major muscle with the “dual-plane” technique if a round implant is used or left completely retroglandular if an anatomic implant is used. (4) The type of implant needed (round vs anatomic) basically depends on the type of aesthetic defect. Major upper pole defects need round implants, and major lower pole defects need anatomic implants. The patient’s preferences are a primary factor in the decision. (5) Breast lifting is performed through strong anchorage to the fascia, muscle, and second rib periosteum. At least three stitches of threaded nonabsorbable 0 or 1 suture are positioned. The whole lower gland pole is left undetached to guarantee blood perfusion (only 1 or 2 cm of periareolar incision are undermined). (6) Periareolar suture is always performed with the “interlocking” technique according to Hammond.

Results

From November 2001 to May 2010, 231 patients underwent surgery using the described technique. The patients all were Caucasian with an average age of 38 years (range, 31–53 years), and all underwent surgery bilaterally. The mean operating time was 150 min (range, 120–180 min), and the mean hospital stay was 3.5 days (range, 2–5 days) after surgery. The ptosis recurrence rate was evaluated. A recurrence is identified when the nipple–areola complex slides more than 2 cm 1 year after surgery. The recurrence rate was 27.6% for other techniques versus 9.1% for the upside-down technique.

Conclusions

Natural shape, stable position, and short scars are the main advantages of the upside-down technique. The typical breast flatness after periareolar access is best corrected by the last-generation dual-cohesiveness anatomic implants, which the author strongly recommends to obtain the best results with this technique. The Body Uneasiness Test (BUT) study showed 100% improvement of patient discomfort.

Keywords

Augmentation mastopexy Hypotrophy Inframammary fold Ptosis Upside-down technique 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MPEG 245910 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmad J, Lista F (2008) Vertical scar reduction mammaplasty: the fate of nipple–areola complex position and inferior pole length. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1084–1091PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benelli L (1990) A new periareolar mammaplasty: the “round block” technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 14:93–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutros S, Kattash M, Wienfeld A, Yuksel E, Baer S, Shenaq S (1998) The intradermal anatomy of the inframammary fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1030–1033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brink R (1993) Management of true ptosis of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 91:657PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Càrdenas-Camarena L, Ramìrez-Macìas R (2006) Augmentation/mastopexy: how to select and perform the proper technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 30:21–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceydeli A, Freund RM (2004) Tear-drop augmentation mastopexy: a technique to augment superior pole hollow. Aesthetic Plast Surg 27:425–432Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuzzolaro M, Vetrone G, Marano G, Garfinkel PE (2006) The body uneasiness test (BUT): development and validation of a new body image assessment scale. Eat Weight Disord 11:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De la Fuente A, Martin del Yerro JL (1992) Periareolar mastopexy with mammary implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 16:337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman RM (2004) Augmentation/mastopexy: “surgeon, beware” reply. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:2230–2231PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gulyàs G (2004) Marking the position of the nipple–areola complex for mastopexy and breast reduction surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:2085–2090PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammond DC, Khuthaila DK, Kim J (2007) The interlocking Gore-Tex suture for control of areolar diameter and shape. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:804–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinderer UT (2001) Circumareolar dermoglandular plication: a new concept for correction of breast ptosis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 25:404–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hönig JF, Frey HP, Hasse FM, Hasselberg J (2009) Autoaugmentation mastopexy with an inferior-based pedicle. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:302–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan UD (2010) Augmentation mastopexy in muscle-splitting biplane: outcome of first 44 consecutive cases of mastopexies in a new pocket. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34(3):313–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirwan L (2002) A classification and algorithm for treatment of breast ptosis. Aesthetic Surg J 22:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lassus C (1999) Update on vertical mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:2289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lockwood TE (1991) Superficial fascial system (SFS) of the trunk and extremities: a new concept. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1009–1018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCafferty LR, Casas LA, Stinnett SS, Lin S, Rho J, Skiles M (2009) Multisite analysis of 177 consecutive primary breast augmentations: predictors for reoperation. Aesth Surg J 29:213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Migliori FC, Robello G, Ravetti JL, Marinari GM (2008) Histological alterations following bariatric surgery: pilot study. Obes Surg 18:1305–1307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Migliori FC, Gabrielli A, Rizzo R, Serra Cervetti GG (2010) Breast contouring in postbariatric patients: a technique selection algorithm. Obes Surg 20:651–656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muntan CD, Sundine MJ, Rink RD, Acland RD (2000) Inframammary fold: a histologic reappraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:549–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nava M, Quattrone P, Riggio E (1998) Focus on the breast fascial system: a new approach for inframammary fold reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1034–1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rubin JP, Gusenoff JA, Coon D (2009) Dermal suspension and parenchymal reshaping mastopexy after massive weight loss: statistical analysis with concomitant procedures from a prospective registry. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:782–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spear SL (2003) Augmentation/mastopexy: Surgeon, beware. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:905–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Svedman P (1991) Correction of breast ptosis utilizing a “fold-over” deepithelialized lower thoracic fasciocutaneous flap. Aesthetic Plast Surg 15:43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plastic Surgery“San Martino” University HospitalGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations