Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 343–348 | Cite as

Transaxillary Muscle-Splitting Breast Augmentation: Experience with 160 Cases

  • Rubem Lang Stümpfle
  • Lucas Figueras Pereira-LimaEmail author
  • André Alves Valiati
  • Guilherme da Silva Mazzini
Original Article



Muscle-splitting breast augmentation, initially described by Baxter and later popularized by Khan, has proved to be an effective technique in terms of implant coverage, bypassing, and even solving of some issues associated with the dual-plane technique. A muscle-splitting breast augmentation technique recently has been used in combination with mastopexy. However, no reports have described muscle-splitting techniques accomplished by the transaxillary route.


A prospective study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes and complications of a novel approach to a specific breast augmentation technique. A total of 160 patients underwent bilateral transaxillary muscle-splitting breast augmentation between October 2007 and July 2010. All the patients were treated on an outpatient basis and received epidural anesthesia. Soft, round, textured, cohesive gel implants ranging in size from 200 to 350 ml were used.


All the patients recovered quickly. To date, no infection, capsular contracture, rippling, double-bubble deformity, muscle contracture-associated deformities, or implant migration has occurred. Four patients (2.5%) experienced hematomas, all of which resolved before discharge. All the patients were discharged less than 24 h postoperatively and had an aesthetically natural result.


Transaxillary muscle-splitting breast augmentation, a novel approach to a technique that has been described previously, provides consistent, satisfactory results and good reproducibility. This new approach provides an excellent anatomic final appearance with no risk of displacement, rippling, double-bubble deformity, or contracture-associated deformities. Furthermore, this technique avoids any visible scars on the breast and features a low complication rate.


Dual plane Implant pockets Muscle-splitting breast augmentation Subglandular implants Submuscular implants 


  1. 1.
    Baxter RA (2005) Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variations. Aesthet Surg J 25:447–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baxter RA (2010) Update on the split-muscle technique for breast augmentation: prevention and correction of animation distortion and double-bubble deformity. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(3):426–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry MG, Davies DM (2010) Breast augmentation: part I: a review of the silicone prosthesis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1761–1768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoehler H (1973) Breast augmentation: the axillary approach. Br J Plast Surg 26:373–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle-splitting breast augmentation: a new pocket in a different plane. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan UD (2009) Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using the muscle-splitting biplane technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Khan UD (2010) Augmentation mastopexy in muscle-splitting biplane: outcome of first 44 consecutive cases of mastopexies in a new pocket. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luan J, Mu D, Mu L (2009) Transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty: experience with 98 breasts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:1459–1463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Momeni A, Padron NT, Fohn M, Bannasch H, Borges J, Ryu SM, Stark GB (2005) Safety, complications, and satisfaction of patients undergoing submuscular breast augmentation via the inframammary and endoscopic transaxillary approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg 29:558–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Niechajev I (2010) Improvements in transaxillary breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:322–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pacella SJ, Codner MA (2009) The transaxillary approach to breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 36:49–61 viPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pereira LH, Sterodimas A (2009) Transaxillary breast augmentation: a prospective comparison of subglandular, subfascial, and submuscular implant insertion. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:752–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peterson R (1979) Transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty. Paper presented at American Society of Plastic Surgeons Annual Meeting. Toronto, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramirez OM, Heller MDL, Tebbetts JB (2002) Dual-plane breast augmentation: avoiding pectoralis major displacement. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:1198 Author reply 1198–1199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual-plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant–soft tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2005) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high-five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:2005–2016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS): ISAPS international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2009. St. Gallen, ISAPS, 2010. Accessed 28 Jan 2011

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rubem Lang Stümpfle
    • 1
  • Lucas Figueras Pereira-Lima
    • 1
    Email author
  • André Alves Valiati
    • 1
  • Guilherme da Silva Mazzini
    • 2
  1. 1.Hospital Moinhos de VentoPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Porto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations