Advertisement

The Comparison of Scars in Breast Implantation Surgery with Inframammary Fold Incision Versus Axillary Incision: A Prospective Cohort Study in Chinese Patients

  • Jingjing Sun
  • Dali Mu
  • Chunjun Liu
  • Minqiang Xin
  • Su Fu
  • Lin Chen
  • Wenyue Liu
  • Jie LuanEmail author
Original Article Breast Surgery
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Background

A prospective cohort study was developed to compare the surgical scars in the axilla and the inframammary fold at short-, medium- and long-term time periods after surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary breast augmentation with implants in our department were divided into two groups based on the incision location they chose and were followed up for scar assessment at 1 month, 6 months and 12 months post-surgery from June 2012 to March 2016. Each scar was evaluated by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and patient satisfaction score. The data were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Cochran–Armitage trend tests and Fisher’s exact probability tests based on the data type.

Results

One hundred and sixty-three patients were completely investigated three times. Ninety-four patients underwent breast augmentation surgeries with implants through axillary approaches and 69 patients through IMF approaches. At 1 month after surgery, the median total VSS score was 6 in the axillary incision group and 4 in the IMF group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Larger proportions of high scores in terms of vascularity and height were found in the axillary incision group (P < 0.05). At 6 months after surgery, the median total VSS score was 4 in the axillary incision group and 3 in the IMF group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The axillary group still had a larger proportion of high scores in terms of vascularity and height than that of the IMF group (P < 0.05). At 12 months after surgery, the median total VSS score was 2 in both groups. The median patient satisfaction score was 9 in both groups. No significant differences were noted in the total VSS and patient satisfaction scores between the two groups. However, the axillary group had a larger proportion of high scores in terms of vascularity and low scores in terms of pliability.

Conclusions

The total VSS score for the axillary incision group was significantly higher than that for the IMF incision group one and 6 months after surgery, mainly on the subscales of vascularity and height. At 12 months after surgery, the total VSS scores were not different between the two groups, and patients with both kinds of incisions were highly satisfied with scar appearance. The research confirmed that the scars at two locations can achieve comparable appearance in the long term after surgery.

Level of Evidence III

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

Scar assessment Breast augmentation Axillary incision IMF incision 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants signed an informed consent approved by the institutional ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheng MH, Huang JJ (2009) Augmentation mammaplasty in Asian women. Semin Plast Surg 23:48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Visscher MO, Bailey JK, Hom DB (2014) Scar treatment variations by skin type. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am 22:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chinese Society of Plastic Surgery (2013) Guidelines for breast augmentation with silicone implants. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi 29:1–4Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun J, Liu C, Mu D, Wang K, Zhu S, He Y, Luan J (2015) Chinese women’s preferences and concerns regarding incision location for breast augmentation surgery: a survey of 216 patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 39:214–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Truong PT, Abnousi F, Yong CM, Hayashi A, Runkel JA, Phillips T, Olivotto IA (2005) Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the vancouver scar scale, short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and patients’ perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1291–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Sartorio F, Stissi V, Franchignoni F (2009) How to assess postsurgical scars: a review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil 31:2055–2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ (1990) Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 11:256–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sun J, Mu D, Liu C, Ji K, Chen L, Liu W, Luan J (2016) Scar assessment after breast augmentation surgery with axillary incision versus inframammary fold incision: long-term follow-up in Chinese patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 40:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu H, Tang D, Cao H, Li K (2006) Reliability of vancouver scar scale. Chin J Rehabil Med 21(3):240–242Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CMAM, van Zuijlen PPM (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Celik M, Tuncer S, Eryilmaz E (2003) Running W incision in open rhinoplasty: better scar quality. Aesthet Plast Surg 27:388–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: redefining the patient and surgeon experience. Mosby Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2004) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(5):73e–81ePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216 (discussion 2217–2208) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blount AL, Martin MD, Lineberry KD, Kettaneh N, Alfonso DR (2013) Capsular contracture rate in a low-risk population after primary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 33:516–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reece EM, Ghavami A, Hoxworth RE, Alvarez SA, Hatef DA, Brown S, Rohrich RJ (2009) Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns. Aesthet Surg J 29:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sevin A, Sevin K, Senen D, Deren O, Adanali G, Erdogan B (2006) Augmentation mammaplasty: retrospective analysis of 210 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 30:651–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Atiyeh BS (2007) Nonsurgical management of hypertrophic scars: evidence-based therapies, standard practices, and emerging methods. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:468–492 (discussion 493–464) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical SciencesPeking Union Medical CollegeBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations