Advantages and Outcomes in Subfascial Breast Augmentation: A Two-Year Review of Experience

Abstract

Background

One of the most popular surgical cosmetic procedures, breast augmentation, has enjoyed large acceptance in the last few decades. One of the most important factors in the dynamics established between the implants and the soft tissues after breast augmentation is the pocket plane. Surgeons have been seeking the proper plane into which the implant might be placed. The subglandular approach resulted in implant edge visibility and was thought to result in a higher incidence of fibrous capsular contractures. Despite the advantage of concealing the implant edges using the subpectoral approach, implant displacement occurred with contraction of the pectoralis muscle. The use of the retrofascial plane seems to yield the benefits of both planes without the deficits.

Methods

Since 2006, 45 patients with hypomastia have undergone subfascial breast augmentation using anatomical contour profile gel cohesive III textured implants.

Results

Pleasing long-term results have been obtained by using subfascial breast augmentation, with maintenance of a natural breast shape and a smooth transition between the soft tissue and implant in the upper pole. There were no capsular contractures and no complaints regarding displacement of the implants with contraction of the pectoralis major muscle.

Conclusions

The subfascial breast augmentation technique offers improved long-term aesthetic results because the dynamics between the implant and soft tissues have been optimized. This technique is extremely versatile and may also be used in patients requiring removal and replacement of breast implants.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery website. Available at http://www.surgery.org/download/2006stats.pdf

  2. 2.

    Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LRR, Costa Damasio RC, Auersvald A (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–908

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sampaio Goes JC, Landecker A (2003) Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years experience with the subfascial plane. Aesth Plast Surg 27:178–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Barbato C, Pena M, Triana C, Zambrano MA (2004) Augmentation mammoplasty using the retrofascia approach. Aesth Plast Surg 28:148–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jinde L, Jianliang S, Xiaoping C, Xiaoyan T, Jiaqing L, Qun M, Bo L (2006) Anatomy and clinical significance of pectoral fascia. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1557–1560

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tebbetts JB, Adams W (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(Suppl):35S–45S

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Adams WP Jr, Rios JL, Smith SJ (2006) Enhancing patient outcomes in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery using triple antibiotic breast irrigation: six-year prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(Suppl):46S–52S

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Savaci N, Tosun Z, Hosnuter M (2004) A simple method for breast implant placement using a drainage tube. Aesth Plast Surg 28:231–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Horia R. Siclovan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siclovan, H.R., Jomah, J.A. Advantages and Outcomes in Subfascial Breast Augmentation: A Two-Year Review of Experience. Aesth Plast Surg 32, 426–431 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9141-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Breast augmentation
  • Pectoralis fascia