Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 716–724 | Cite as

Quantifying Dynamic Deformity After Dual Plane Breast Augmentation

  • Marcelo Recondo CheffeEmail author
  • Jorge Diego Valentini
  • Marcus Vinicius Martins Collares
  • Pedro Salomão Piccinini
  • Jefferson Luis Braga da Silva
Original Article Breast Surgery

Abstract

Background

Dynamic breast deformity (DBD) is characterized by visible distortion and deformity of the breast due to contraction of the pectoralis major muscle after submuscular breast augmentation; fortunately, in most cases, this is not a clinically significant complaint from patients. The purpose of this study is to present a simple method for objectively measuring DBD in patients submitted to dual plane breast augmentation (DPBA).

Methods

We studied 32 women, between 18 and 50 years old, who underwent primary DPBA with at least 1 year of follow-up. Anthropometric landmarks of the breast were marked, creating linear segments. Standardized photographs were obtained both during no pectoralis contraction (NPC) and during maximum pectoralis muscle contraction (MPC); measurements of the linear segments were taken through ImageJ imaging software, and both groups were compared.

Results

We found statistically significant differences in all analyzed segments when comparing measurements of the breasts during NPC and MPC (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study proposes a novel, standardized method for measuring DBD after DPBA. This technique is reproducible, allowing for objective quantification of the deformity in any patient, which can be valuable for both patients and surgeons, as it allows for a more thorough discussion on DBD, both pre- and postoperatively, and may help both patients and surgeons to make more informed decisions regarding potential animation deformities after breast augmentation.

Level of Evidence V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Keywords

Breast augmentation Dynamic breast deformity Breast animation Subpectoral Dual plane 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with regard to the content of this manuscript.

Ethical standards

This study was approved by the IRB, and all procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of Hospital São Lucas - Pontifical University Catholic of Rio Grande do Sul research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 17638 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Regnault P (1977) Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:72–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2006) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:188S–196SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255–1272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dempsey WC, Latham WD (1968) Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammaplasty. Preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 42:515–521CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH (2013) Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:1165–1172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bracaglia R, Tambasco D, Gentileschi S, D’Ettorre M (2013) Triple-plane technique for breast augmentation: solving animation deformities. Aesthet Plast Surg 37:715–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tebbetts JB (2006) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:81S–98SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spear SL, Carter ME, Ganz JC (2006) The correction of capsular contracture by conversion to “dual-plane” positioning: technique and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:103S–113S (discussion 14S) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spear SL, Carter ME, Ganz JC (2003) The correction of capsular contracture by conversion to “dual-plane” positioning: technique and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:456–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pardo Mateu L, Chamorro Hernandez JJ (1998) Partial myotomy of the pectoralis major in submuscular breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 22:228–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maxwell GP, Tornambe R (1988) Management of mammary subpectoral implant distortion. Clin Plast Surg 15:601–611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan UD (2009) Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using the muscle-splitting biplane technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:353–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baxter RA (2005) Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variations. Aesthet Surg J 25:447–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR, McLaughlin JK, Kjoller K, Hoyer AP et al (2005) Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation: a prospective study of risk factors. Ann Plast Surg 54:343–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Adams WP Jr, Teitelbaum S, Bengtson BP, Jewell ML, Tebbetts J, Spear S (2006) Breast augmentation roundtable. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:175S–187SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2004) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114:73E–81ECrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan UD (2007) Muscle-splitting breast augmentation: a new pocket in a different plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:553–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA (2015) Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:1540–1544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee SD, Yi MH, Kim DW, Lee Y, Choi Y, Oh SH (2016) The effect of botulinum neurotoxin type A on capsule formation around silicone implants: the in vivo and in vitro study. Int Wound J 13:65–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:44–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Quieregatto PR, Hochman B, Ferrara SF, Furtado F, Liebano RE, Sabino Neto M et al (2014) Anthropometry of the breast region: how to measure? Aesthetic Plast Surg 38:344–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Westreich M (1997) Anthropomorphic breast measurement: protocol and results in 50 women with aesthetically perfect breasts and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:468–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu YJ, Thomson JG (2011) Ideal anthropomorphic values of the female breast: correlation of pluralistic aesthetic evaluations with objective measurements. Ann Plast Surg 67:7–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Agbenorku P, Agbenorku M, Iddi A, Amevor E, Sefenu R, Osei D (2011) Measurements of breasts of young West African females: a guideline in anatomical landmarks for adolescent breast surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:49–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Catherwood T, McCaughan E, Greer E, Spence RA, McIntosh SA, Winder RJ (2011) Validation of a passive stereophotogrammetry system for imaging of the breast: a geometric analysis. Med Eng Phys 33:900–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pelle-Ceravolo M, Del Vescovo A, Bertozzi E, Molinari P (2004) A technique to decrease breast shape deformity during muscle contraction in submuscular augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 28:288–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mallucci P, Branford OA (2015) Shapes, proportions, and variations in breast aesthetic ideals: the definition of breast beauty, analysis, and surgical practice. Clin Plast Surg 42:451–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcelo Recondo Cheffe
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jorge Diego Valentini
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcus Vinicius Martins Collares
    • 3
  • Pedro Salomão Piccinini
    • 4
  • Jefferson Luis Braga da Silva
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Hospital São Lucas (HSL)Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)Porto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Clínica CheffePorto AlegreBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Plastic and Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto AlegreFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  4. 4.HSL, PUCRSPorto AlegreBrazil
  5. 5.Hand Surgery and Reconstructive Microsurgery, HSLPorto AlegreBrazil
  6. 6.School of MedicinePUCRSPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations