Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 290–302 | Cite as

Muscle-Splitting, Subglandular, and Partial Submuscular Augmentation Mammoplasties: A 12-year Retrospective Analysis of 2026 Primary Cases

  • Umar Daraz KhanEmail author
Original Article Breast



Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure with a very high satisfaction rate. Various techniques have been described since the report of the first augmentation mammoplasty in 1963. Muscle-splitting augmentation mammoplasty, a technique first published in 2007, has been used by the author for primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasties and for mastopexy with augmentation.


A retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected using the Excel spreadsheet was performed. The patients were divided into three groups. The mammoplasty for group A used the subglandular pocket. In group B, the partial submuscular pocket was used for mammoplasties. Both of these groups had their mammoplasties performed between 1999 and 2005. Group C, the third group, included patients who had muscle-splitting mammoplasties between 2005 and 2011.


Group A involved 793 patients who had their augmentation mammoplasties in the subglandular pocket. Of these 793 patients, 751 had the same size implants and were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients in group A was 30.9 ± 7.98 years (range 18–59 years), and their mean implant size was 317.5 cc ± 2.05 (range 200–555). In group A, 45.1 % (n = 339) of the patients were smokers, and 62.2 % (n = 467) had drains. The majority of the patients (78 %) had an overnight stay in the clinic. Hematoma was seen in 2.7 % (n = 20) of the group A patients. Revision was performed for 6 % (n = 45). Periprosthetic infection was seen in 0.4 % (n = 3) and minor wound healing problems in 1.3 % (n = 10). Group B comprised 110 patients who had mammoplasties performed in partial submuscular pockets. All the patients had the same size implants. The mean age of the group B patients was 33 ± 8.26 years (range 20–58 years), and their mean implant size was 300.6 cc ± 35.92 (range 205–395). Of these 110 patients, 51.8 % (n = 57) were smokers, and 94.5 % (n = 104) had drains. Hematoma was seen in 1.8 % (n = 2), and revision was performed for 7.3 % (n = 8) in the submuscular subgroup. Infection was seen in 3.6 % (n = 4) and minor wound healing problems in 4.5 % (n = 5). Group C consisted of 1,123 patients who had breast augmentation in the muscle-splitting biplane. Of these 1,123 patients, 914 had the same size implants. The mean age of the patients was 30.0 ± 8.78 years (range 18–67 years), and their mean implant size was 338.2 cc ± 58.01 (range 170–655). In group C, 33.6 % of the patients were smokers, and 8 % had drains. The majority of the patients (93.4 %) were treated as day cases. Hematoma was seen in 0.7 %, and 1.2 % of the patients had revision surgery. Infection was seen in 1.6 % (n = 15) and minor wound healing in 4 % (n = 45).


Muscle-splitting mammoplasty is a technique that can be performed as a day case without drains. The overall complications in the group were significantly lower than with the other two techniques performed by the author.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a 41 level of evidence to each article. For a full description of 42 these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the 43 Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors 44


Dual-plane mammoplasty Muscle-splitting biplane mammoplasty Partial submuscular mammoplasty Subglandular mammoplasty 



The author thanks Mr. E. A. Syed, MSc (Stats) of Pakistan Medical Research Council for help with the statistical analysis.


  1. 1.
    Cronin TD, Gerow RM (1964) Augmentation mammoplasty: new “natural feel” prosthesis. In: Translation of the third international congress of the plastic surgery, pp. 41–49. Excerpta medica international congress series, no. 66. Excerpta Medica, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biggs TM, Yarish RS (1990) Augmentation mammoplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dempsey WC, Latham WD (1968) Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammoplasty: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 42:515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Regnault P (1977) Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual-plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant soft tissue relationship in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spear LS, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LRR, Damasio RCC, Auersvald A (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle-splitting biplane breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:353–358Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khan UD (2009) Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using muscle-splitting biplane technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baxter RA (2005) Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variation. Aesthet Surg J 25:447–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan UD (2009) Selection of breast pocket using pinch test in augmentation mammoplasty: can it be relied in long term? Aesthet Plast Surg 33:780–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan UD (2010) Augmentation mastopexy in muscle-splitting biplane: an outcome of first 44 consecutive cases of mastopexies in a new pocket. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan UD (2009) Breast augmentation in asymmetrically placed nipple areolar complex in horizontal axis: lateralisation of implant pocket to offset lateralised nipples. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:591–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan UD (2011) Multiplane technique for simultaneous submuscular breast augmentation and internal glandulopexy using inframammary crease incision in selected patients with early ptosis. Eur J Plast Surg 34:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khan UD (2011) Breast and chest asymmetries: classification and relative distribution of common asymmetries in patients requesting augmentation mammoplasty. Eur J Plast Surg 34:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khan UD (2010) Combining muscle-splitting biplane with multilayer capsuloraphy for the correction of bottoming down following subglandular augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg 33:259–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khan UD (2009) Acquired synmastia following subglandular mammoplasty and the use of submuscular splitting biplane for its correction. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:605–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan UD (2012) High transverse capsuloplasty for the correction of malpositioned implants following augmentation mammoplasty in partial submuscular plane. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:590–599Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khan UD (2012) Secondary augmentation mammoplasties and periprosthetic infection. A three-year retrospective review of 92 secondary mammoplasties performed by a single surgeon. Aesthet Surg J 32:465–733Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan UD (2009) Breast autoinflation with sterile pus as a marker of implant rupture: single-stage treatment and outcome for five consecutive cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baxter RA (2011) Update on the split-muscle technique for breast augmentation: prevention and correction of animation distortion and double-bubble deformity. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:426–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berlanda M (2010) Muscle-splitting augmentation: personal experience with the new technique. In: Umar DK (ed) X Miedzynoraodowy Kongres Medycyny Estetycznej i Anti-Aging, 24–26 September 2010, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berlanda M (2009) Mastoplastica additiva “Per separazione intramuscolare”: Esperienza personale con la nuova tecnica descritta da Umar Khan. Presented at the 11th international congress of aesthetic medicine society, 15–17 October 2009, MilanGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stodell M, McArthur G, James M (2010) Biplaner breast augmentation: a case series supporting its use and benefits. Presented at the annual meeting of the British association of aesthetic plastic surgeons (BAAPS), 22–24 September 2010, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aštrauskas T, Vikšraitis S, Maslauskas K, Kaikaris V (2009) Comparison of two methods of breast augmentation: muscle-splitting versus traditional subpectoral method. Presented at the 11th congress of ESPRAS, 26–27 September 2009, RhodesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stumpfle RL, Pereira-Lima LF, Valiati AA, Da Mazzini GS (2012) Transaxillary muscle-splitting breast augmentation: experience with 160 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammoplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1453–1457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heden P, Bone B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2006) Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1281–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cunningham B (2007) The Mentor core study on silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:19S–29SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nahi et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1301–1313Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA (2006) A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:757–767Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khan UD (2011) Augmentation mammoplasty in breasts with port-wine stains: are these patients at increased risk of haematoma? Aesthet Plast Surg 35:130–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khan UD (2010) Breast augmentation, antibiotic prophylaxis, and infection: comparative analysis of 1,628 primary augmentation mammoplasties to assess the role and efficacy of length of antibiotic prophylaxis. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Khan UD (2011) Back-to-front flipping of implants following augmentation mammoplasty and the role of physical characteristics in a round cohesive gel silicone breast implant: retrospective analysis of 3,458 breast implants by a single surgeon. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:125–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baeke JL (2002) Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reshape HouseKentUK

Personalised recommendations