Advertisement

Invited Discussion on: Tissue-Based Implant Selection and Preoperative Markings with the AK or Q2 Method

  • Per HedénEmail author
Editor’s Invited Commentary
  • 21 Downloads

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.

Implant selection and the planning of breast implant surgery have changed dramatically over the last decades. Early techniques were arbitrary and only based on the surgeon’s experiences without measurements. Unfortunately, many surgeons still do not consider the implant’s dimensions and measure when performing augmentations. With this in mind, the authors should be complimented for their attempt to simplify and standardize the planning of breast augmentation procedures. The method presented by the authors takes into consideration the implants ARC value and amount of glandular tissue in describing an algorithm for planning of the amount of skin needed in the lower pole of the breast. The ARC value represents the distance...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Mallucci P, Branford OA (2012) Concepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: analysis of the ideal breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hedén P, Jernbeck J, Hober M (2001) Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world’s largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg 28:531–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hedén P (2010) Form stable shaped high cohesive gel implants. In: Hall-Findlay EJ, Evans GRD (eds) Aesthtetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, Chapter 24. Saunders Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 357–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hedén P (2011) Breast augmentation with anatomic, high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants (European experience). In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast: principles and art, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1322–1345Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montemurro P, Agko M, Quattrini Li A, Avvedimento S, Hedén P (2017) Implementation of an integrated biodimensional method of breast augmentation with anatomic, highly cohesive silicone gel implants: short-term results with the first 620 consecutive cases. Aesthet Surg J 37:782–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hedén P (2009) Mastopexy augmentation with form stable breast implants. Clin Plastic Surg 36(1):91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hedén P, Montemurro P, Adams WP Jr, Germann G, Scheflan M, Maxwell GP (2015) Anatomical and round breast implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:263–272CrossRefGoogle 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 Plastic SurgeryAkademikliniken Scandinavian Hospital GroupStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations