Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Augmentation Mammaplasty: Retrospective Analysis of 210 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since its introduction in 1895, augmentation mammaplasty has gained widespread acceptance. The choice of breast augmentation procedure is determined almost entirely by three variables: the selection of incision location, the pocket plane for implant placement (either subpectoral or completely subglandular), and the appropriate implant. The current study evaluated 210 cases of augmentation mammaplasty retrospectively. A capsular contracture rate of 8% was found. Rupture and gel bleeding were observed in eight cases (4%). For various reasons, such as capsular contracture or implant rupture, the prostheses were renewed once in 16 patients (8%) and twice in 5 patients (2%). Submammary incision was used in 42 cases (20%). The patients in 23 cases responded that they had implant folds or edges they could feel (11%). Only 4 of these 23 patients stated that feeling the edge of the implant was a concern for them. Of the 210 augmented breasts, 5 had diminished sensation postoperatively (2%), as interpreted by the patient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Asplund O, Gylbert L, Jurell G, Ward C: Textured or smooth implants for submuscular breast augmentation: A controlled study. Plast Reconst Surg 97:1200, 1996

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker JL Jr: The effectiveness of alpha-tocopherol (vitamin E) in reducing the incidence of spherical contracture around breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 68:696, 1981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Biggs TM, Cukier J, Worthing JF: Augmentation mammaplasty: A review of 18 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 69:445, 1982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bogetti P, Boltri M, Balocco P, Spagnoli G: Augmentation mammaplasty with a new chosive gel prosthesis. Aesth Plast Surg 24:440, 2000

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brody GS: On the safety of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1314, 1997

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Burkhardt BR, Demas CP: The effect of Siltex texturing and povidone–iodine irrigation on capsular contracture around saline inflatable breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 93:123, 1994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Burkhardt BR, Eades E: The effect of Biocell texturing and povidone–iodine irrigation on capsular contracture around saline-inflatable breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:1317, 1995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Coleman DJ, Foo ITH, Sharp DT: Textured or smooth implants for breast augmentation? A prospective controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg 44:444, 1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Collis N, Coleman DJ, Foo IT, Sharpe DT: Ten-year review of a prospective randomized controlled trial of textured versus smooth subglanduler silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 106:786, 2000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Czerny V: Plastic replacement of the breast with a lipoma. Chir Kong Verhandl 2:21, 1895

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eppley BL: Preventing postoperative noise in saline breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:1979, 1999

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hakelius L, Ohlsen L: Tendency to capsular contracture around smooth textured gel-filled silicone mammary implants: A five-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1566, 1997

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heden P, Jernbeck J, Hober M: Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: The world’s largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg 28:531, 2001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hidalgo DA: Breast augmentation: Choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202, 2000

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoehler H: Breast augmentation: The axillary approach. Br J Plast Surg 26:373, 1973

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jenny H: Areolar approach to augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 53:344, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malata CM, Feldberg L, Coleman DJ, et al. Textured or smooth implant for breast augmentation? Three year follow-up of a prospective randomised controlled trial. Br J Plast Surg 50:99, 1997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mateo JM, Perez MM: Innovative new concepts in augmentative breast surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 22:372, 1998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McGrath MH, Burkhard BR: The safety and efficacy of breast implants of augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 74:550, 1984

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Menke H, Grubmeyer H, Biemer E, Olbrisch RR: PVP breast implants after two years: Initial results of a prospective study. Aesth Plast Surg 25:278, 2001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Momeni A, Padron NT, Fohn M, Bannasch H, et al. Safety, complications, and satisfaction of patients undergoing submuscular breast augmentation via the inframammary and endoscopic transaxillary approach. Aesth Plast Surg 29:558, 2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pollock H: Breast capsular contracture: A retrospective study of textured versus smooth silicone implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 91:404, 1993

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tarpilla E, Ghassemifar R, Fagrell D, Berggren A: Capsular contracture with textured versus smooth saline-filled implants for breast augmentation: A prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 99:1934, 1997

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tebbetts JB: Breast augmentation with full-height anatomic saline implants: The pros and cons. Clin Plast Surg 28:567, 2001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Asuman Sevin M.D., Dilek Senen M.D., Orgun Deren M.D., Gokhan Adanali M.D. & Bulent Erdogan M.D.

  2. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Department, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Kutlu Sevin M.D.

  3. Zirvekent 2. Etap sitesi C-1/43 Cankaya, Ankara, 06550, Turkey

    Kutlu Sevin M.D.

Authors
  1. Asuman Sevin M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kutlu Sevin M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dilek Senen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Orgun Deren M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gokhan Adanali M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bulent Erdogan M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kutlu Sevin M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sevin, A., Sevin, K., Senen, D. et al. Augmentation Mammaplasty: Retrospective Analysis of 210 cases. Aesth Plast Surg 30, 651–654 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0076-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0076-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation