Breast Augmentation with Extra-projected and High-Cohesive Dual-Gel Prosthesis 510: A Prospective Study of 75 Consecutive Cases for a New Method (the Zenith System)
- 669 Downloads
Extra-projected Natrelle 510 belongs to a new generation of silicone breast implants. A single-surgeon prospective study set out to investigate the device’s features, outcomes, and complications, and devise a proper measurement method based on the zenith system.
From December 2004 to June 2010, 75 subjects (150 implants) were enrolled in four cohorts: primary augmentation (66.7 %), primary mastopexy augmentation (17.3 %), secondary implant exchange (9.3 %), and secondary implant exchange + pexy (6.7 %). The system used to select the implant correlated the point of maximal projection (vertex-zenith) and nipple position. The surgical approach included (1) narrow pocket, preferably dual-plane; (2) device vertex 1–2.5 cm beneath nipple (zenith range = 12°–23°) related to a nipple-inframammary fold distance of 7–7.5 cm at maximal stretch and a nipple–sternum/lower-pole line distance of 4–5 cm; (3) inframammary fold lowered minimally; (4) vertex at ±1 cm from the midbreast meridian crossing the nipple; and (5) maximizing the biomechanical effects between soft-tissue dynamics, firmer gel pressure, and pectoralis major counterpressure to expand the lower skin (dynamic tension).
Mean follow-up was 26.5 months (range = 6–72); in 20 subjects; follow-up was over 3 years (average = 50 months) with a 90.8 % patient satisfaction rate. This rate was lower in patients with preoperative ptosis. There was inframammary preservation with 60 % of the implants and modification in 40 % (0.80 ± 0.45 cm). The overall complication rate per implant was 16.6 % and included wound healing/scarring (7 %), malrotation (2.6 %, only 1 % after primary augmentation), rippling (2 %), capsular contracture (1.3 %), and bottoming-out (0.6 %). The revision rate was 6 %, of which 3.3 % were pocket revisions. Greater skills are required through the learning curve, patient education, case selection, planning using the nipple-vertex relationship (the zenith system), and improved surgical manipulation. Indications and contraindications were analyzed. Cosmetic results were compliant with different breast shapes, and excellent for the breast with poor projection, in thin subjects, and those with low BMI. Ptotic breast should require a larger amount of pexy, 510 did not lift the breast enough.
Based on vertex-nipple distance, dynamic tension, and skin extensibility, this new approach gives guidelines and methods to perform breast augmentation with extra-projected implants.
Level of Evidence III
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 at www.springer.com/00266.
KeywordsBreast augmentation Extra-projected anatomical implants Silicone dual-gel prosthesis Sizing methods for breast surgery Mastopexy augmentation Biomechanical properties Implant complications
The author thanks Enzo Mannino, M.D., and Marcello Bonavita, M.D., who helped me in the clinical management of the majority of patients enrolled in the study, and Ms. Bianca Protopapa for follow-up recruitments.
The author has no financial or commercial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
- 7.Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ, Deraemaecker R, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Brenner RJ, Svarvar C, Van Tetering J, Van der Weij LP (2009) Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(3):430–436 discussion 437–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Riggio E (2010) Extra-projected dual cohesive silicone gel anatomical implants: innovation for breast augmentation. In: Berhardt LV (ed), Advances in Medicine and Biology, vol. 8. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp 273–295. Available via https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=22172
- 11.Maher JL, Bennett DC, Grothaus P, Mahabir RC (2010) Breast augmentation: a geographical comparison. Can J Plast Surg 18(4):44–46Google Scholar
- 12.Hedén P (2006) Breast augmentation with anatomic high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the Breast: principles and art, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1344–1366Google Scholar
- 14.Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: quantitative tissue assessment and planning. In: Spear SL (ed), Surgery of the breast: principles and art, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1261–1288Google Scholar