Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simultaneous Augmentation and Periareolar Mastopexy: Selecting the Correct Implant

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

The Original Article was published on 31 December 2009

Abstract

Background

Periareolar mastopexy is a well-described technique for cosmetic improvement of breasts classified as Regnault ptosis grades 1 and 2. However, this technique is used less frequently for cases of grade 3 ptosis.

Methods

Grades 2 and 3 ptosis were corrected for selected patients using a combination of augmentation with Style 410 shaped, form-stable, highly cohesive, silicone gel implants and periareolar mastopexy.

Results

In this study, 17 patients were treated. The Style 410 implants used included four different devices: FX (full height, extra-full projection, n = 4), MX (medium height, extra-full projection, n = 1), MF (medium height, full projection, n = 8), and FF (full height, full projection, n = 4). No complications occurred immediately after surgery, and only two cases of capsular contracture Baker grade 2 cases with implant palpability occurred during a mean follow-up period of 18 months. All 17 women were very satisfied with the improvement in their clothed appearance, and 16 were very satisfied overall with their surgery and body image improvements.

Conclusions

With proper selection of patients and Style 410 breast implants, cases of grade 3 breast ptosis can be managed successfully by the periareolar approach, thus extending the range of cases suitable for this technique. The different shapes of the Style 410 form-stable, silicone gel implants help to recreate the desired natural-looking breast, achieving stable results with minimal complications.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rohrich RJ, Gosman AA, Brown SA, Reisch J (2006) Mastopexy preferences: a survey of board-certified plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1631–1638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baran CN, Peker F, Ortak T, Sensoz O, Baran NK (2001) Unsatisfactory results of periareolar mastopexy with or without augmentation and reduction mammoplasty: Enlarged areola with flattened nipple. Aesth Plast Surg 25:286–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Persoff MM (2003) Vertical mastopexy with expansion augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 27:13–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pontes R (1981) Reduction mammaplasty: variations I and II. Ann Plast Surg 6:437–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Menon N (2004) One-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy: aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. Aesth Plast Surg 28:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis: definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 3:193–203

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Allergan, Inc (2006) INAMED Style 410 silicone-filled breast implants directions for use. Allergan, Inc, Santa Barbara, CA

  8. Spear SL, Kassan M, Little JW (1990) Guidelines in concentric mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 85:961–966

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual-plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant–soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255–1272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hammond DC, Hollender HA, Bouwense CL (2001) The sit-up position in breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:572–576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Puckett CL, Meyer VH, Reinisch JF (1985) Crescent mastopexy and augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:533–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Erol OO, Spira M (1980) A mastopexy technique for mild to moderate ptosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:603–609

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gruber RP, Jones HW Jr (1980) The “donut” mastopexy: indications and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:34–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hinderer UT (2001) Circumareolar dermo-glandular plication: a new concept for correction of breast ptosis. Aesth Plast Surg 25:404–420

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Benelli L (2006) Periareolar mastopexy and reduction: the “round block”. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast: principles and art, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 977–990

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goes JC (1996) Periareolar mammaplasty: double-skin technique with application of polyglactine or mixed mesh. Plast Reconstr Surg 97:959–968

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Qiao Q, Sun J, Liu C, Liu Z, Zhao R (2003) Reduction mammaplasty and correction of ptosis: dermal bra technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:1122–1130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gryskiewicz JM, Hatfield AS (2002) “Zigzag” wavy-line periareolar incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:1778–1783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Becker H (2003) Subareolar mastopexy: update. Aesthet Surg J 23:357–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Spear SL, Giese SY, Ducic I (2001) Concentric mastopexy revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1294–1299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bartels RJ, Strickland DM, Douglas WM (1976) A new mastopexy operation for mild or moderate breast ptosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 57:687–691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for editorial support was provided by Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA. Editorial assistance was provided by Health Learning Systems, Parsippany, NJ, USA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Plastic Surgery Instituto Quirurgico Callao, University of Buenos Aires, Universidad Catolica Argentina, Avenue Callao 1046 PB A (1046), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Alberto Rancati

  2. Direttore Struttura Complessa di Oncologia Chirurgica Ricostruttiva–Chirurgia Plastica, Plastic Surgery Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Maurizio Nava

  3. University of Buenos Aires, Universidad Catolica Argentina, Avenue Callao 1046 PB A (1046), Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Luciano Tessari

Authors
  1. Alberto Rancati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maurizio Nava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luciano Tessari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Rancati.

Additional information

For commentary to this article, see doi:10.1007/s00266-009-9441-x.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rancati, A., Nava, M. & Tessari, L. Simultaneous Augmentation and Periareolar Mastopexy: Selecting the Correct Implant. Aesth Plast Surg 34, 33–39 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9440-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9440-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation