Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Periareolar Mastopexy with FortaPerm

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

Abstract

Background

Recurrent ptosis is a common sequel of mastopexy. The use of mesh as an adjunct to the double-skin technique was developed to reduce the incidence of recurrent ptosis. The optimal mesh needs to strike the right balance between persistence, inflammation, biocompatibility, and incorporation without interfering with mammography or presenting a long-term infection risk. This study investigated the ability of a biologic tissue matrix, FortaPerm, to achieve these goals.

Methods

Women undergoing mastopexy were enrolled in this prospective observational study. The study participants were evaluated at multiple time points for 5 years. Efficacy was assessed primarily by photographic evaluation and secondarily by mammography, patient and physician global assessments, and patient pain assessments.

Results

Five women ages 17–41 years were enrolled in this study. At 12 months, 80% of the patients (4/5), and at 5 years, 66% of the patients (2/3) had no asymmetry or ptosis. Mammographic evaluation of the breasts was not affected by the presence of the FortaPerm, and there were no abnormal findings. In two patients, FortaPerm was associated with bilateral seromas associated with extrusion of small amounts of the FortaPerm material in the absence of surrounding inflammation.

Conclusions

FortaPerm achieved excellent initial aesthetic outcomes and long-term maintenance of the breast position with no evidence of ptosis 5 years postoperatively for a majority of the patients. FortaPerm did not interfere with mammography, presented no long-term safety concerns, and produced satisfactory results for all patients relative to appearance of the scar as well as shape and firmness of the breasts.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Goes JCS, Landecker A, Lyra EC et al (2004) The application of mesh support in periareolar breast surgery: clinical and mammographic evaluation. Aesth Plast Surg 28:268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goes JCS (1989) Periareolar mammaplasty: double-skin technique. Rev Soc Bras Cir Plas 4:55

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goes JCS (1992) Periareolar mammaplasty: double-skin technique with application of polyglactine 910 mesh. Rev Soc Bras Cir Plas 7:1

    Google Scholar 

  5. Goes JCS (2002) Periareolar mammaplasty: double-skin technique with application of mesh. Clin Plastic Surg 29:349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goes JCS (2005) Periareolar mammaplasty: double-skin technique with application of mesh support. In: Spear SL, Willey SC, Robb GL, Hammond DC, Nahabedian MY II (eds) Surgery of the breast. Principles and art. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  7. Spear SL, Low M, Ducic I (2003) Revision augmentation mastopexy: indications, operations, and outcomes. Ann Plast Surg 51:540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber FA, Herbert MA, Coons DA (2006) Tendon augmentation grafts: biomechanical failure loads and failure patterns. Arthroscopy 22:534

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Derwin KA, Baker AR, Spragg RK et al (2006) Commercial extracellular matrix scaffolds for rotator cuff tendon repair: biomechanical, biochemical, and cellular properties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:2665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mullen MJ, Hildick-Smith D, De Giovanni JV et al (2006) BioSTAR Evaluation STudy (BEST): a prospective, multicenter, phase I clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the BioSTAR bioabsorbable septal repair implant for the closure of atrial-level shunts. Circulation 114:1962

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gustilo-Ashby AM, Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE et al (2007) Bowel symptoms 1 year after surgery for prolapse: further analysis of a randomized trial of rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:76e1

    Google Scholar 

  12. Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW et al (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abraham GA, Murray J, Billiar K et al (2000) Evaluation of the porcine intestinal collagen layer as a biomaterial. J Biomed Mater Res 51:442

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hardin-Young J, Carr RM, Downing GJ et al (1996) Modification of native collagen reduces antigenicity but preserves cell compatibility. Biotechnol Bioeng 49:675

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Organogenesis data on file. Canton, MA

  16. Bieri D, Reeve RA, Champion GD et al (1990) The FACES pain scale for the self-assessment of the severity of pain experienced by children: development, initial validation, and preliminary investigation for ratio scale properties. Pain 41:139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall-Findlay EJ (1999) A simplified vertical reduction mammaplasty: shortening the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lejour M (1994) Vertical mammaplasty and liposuction of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McKissock PK (1972) Reduction mammaplasty with a vertical dermal flap. Plast Reconstr Surg 49:245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Peixoto G (1980) Reduction mammaplasty: a personal technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Regnault P (1974) Reduction mammaplasty by the “B” technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 53:19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Robbins TH (1984) Inferior pedicle breast reduction technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 73:325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldenberg A, Matone J, Marcondes W et al (2005) Comparative study of inflammatory response and adhesions formation after fixation of different meshes for inguinal hernia repair in rabbits. Acta Cir Bras 20:347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Muller M et al (1999) Influence of polyglactin-coating on functional and morphological parameters of polypropylene-mesh modifications for abdominal wall repair. Biomaterials 20:613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosch R, Junge K, Schachtrupp A et al (2003) Mesh implants in hernia repair. Inflammatory cell response in a rat model. Eur Surg Res 35:161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A et al (2004) In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 18:211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Harrell AG, Novitsky YW, Kercher KW et al (2006) In vitro infectability of prosthetic mesh by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Hernia 10:120

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bellows CF, Alder A, Helton WS (2006) Abdominal wall reconstruction using biological tissue grafts: present status and future opportunities. Expert Rev Med Devices 3:657–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rua Campos Bicudo, 98-conj. 111, Sao Paulo, SP, 04536-010, Brazil

    Joao Carlos Sampaio Goes

  2. Organogenesis Inc., 150 Dan Rd, Canton, MA, 02021, USA

    Damien Bates

Authors
  1. Joao Carlos Sampaio Goes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Damien Bates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joao Carlos Sampaio Goes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goes, J.C.S., Bates, D. Periareolar Mastopexy with FortaPerm. Aesth Plast Surg 34, 350–358 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9462-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9462-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation