Abstract
Background
Postoperative tissue stretch deformities are among the possible complications in breast augmentation. These deformities are responsible for many potential risks such as bottoming-out deformity, breakdown of the inframammary fold, permanent tissue atrophy, sensory loss, and breast distortion (visible implant edges and traction rippling), among others. Although the elastic properties of the breast are a major concern for plastic surgeons, concepts such as stiffness, compliance, elasticity, and resilience have not been sufficiently defined or explored in the plastic surgery literature.
Methods
Similar to any other material, living tissues are subject to the fundamentals of the mechanics of materials. Based on their experience with more than 5,000 breast augmentations, the authors explored the basic fundamentals of the mechanics of materials in search of a rational explanation for long-term results in breast augmentation and augmentation-mastopexy.
Results
A basic law of the mechanics of materials determines that when a material (e.g., breast) is loaded with a force (e.g., implant), it produces a stress that causes the material to deform (e.g., breast augmentation), and this behavior might be graphed in a theoretical material’s stress–stress curve. This deformation will increase with time although the load (implant) remains constant, a concept termed “creep deformation.” Because the breast, like all human tissues, is a viscoelastic material, the application of concepts such as elastic and plastic deformation, stiffness, compliance, resilience, and creep deformation can and should be applied to breast augmentation surgery.
Conclusions
The authors have found that the principles of the mechanics of materials can provide plastic surgeons with some clues for a predictable, long-lasting good result in breast augmentation and augmentation-mastopexy. Future studies are needed to develop these concepts and evaluate how they might individually determine the mid- and long-term outcomes of augmented breasts.
Level of Evidence V
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 www.springer.com/00266.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abu-Hijleh MF, Roshier AL, Al-Shboul Q, Dharap AS, Harris PF (2006) The membranous layer of superficial fascia: Evidence for its widespread distribution in the body. Surg Radiol Anat 28:606–619
Agache PG, Monneur C, Leveque JL, De Rigal J (1980) Mechanical properties and Young’s modulus of human skin in vivo. Arch Dermatol Res 269:221–232
Avelar J (1989) Regional distribution and behavior of the subcutaneous tissue concerning selection and indication for liposuction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 13:155–165
Bischoff JE, Arruda EM, Grosh K (2000) Finite element modeling of human skin using an isotropic, nonlinear elastic constitutive model. J Biomech 33:645–652
Boutros S, Kattash M, Wienfeld A, Yuksel E, Baer S, Shenaq S (1998) The intradermal anatomy of the inframammary fold. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1030–1033
Choudry U, Kim N (2012) Preoperative assessment preferences and reported reoperation rates for size change in primary breast augmentation: a survey of ASPS members. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:1352–1359
Codner MA, Cohen AT, Hester TR (2001) Complications in breast augmentation: Prevention and correction. Clin Plast Surg 28(96):587–595 discussion 96
De Filippo RE, Atala A (2002) Stretch and growth: the molecular and physiologic influences of tissue expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2450–2462
Edwards C, Marks R (1995) Evaluation of biomechanical properties of human skin. Clin Dermatol 13:375–380
Garnier D, Angonin R, Foulon P, Chavoin J, Ricbourg B, Costagliola M (1991) Le sillon sous-mammaire: Mythe ou réalité? Ann Chir Plast Esthet 36:313–319
Gefen A, Dilmoney B (2007) Mechanics of the normal woman’s breast. Technol Health Care 15:259–271
Gere JM, Goodno BJ (2012) Mechanics of materials, 8th edn. Cengage Learning, Stanford
Gupta HN (2012) Manufacturing processes (as per the new syllabus, B. Tech. I year of U.P. Technical University). 2nd ed. New Age International, New Delhi
Handel N (2006) Secondary mastopexy in the augmented patient: a recipe for disaster. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:152S–163S discussion 64S–65S, 66S–67S
Hibbeler RC (2011) Mechanics of materials, 8th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River
Jinde L, Jianliang S, Xiaoping C, Xiaoyan T, Jiaqing L, Qun M et al (2006) Anatomy and clinical significance of pectoral fascia. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1557–1560
Johnson TM, Lowe L, Brown MD, Sullivan MJ, Nelson BR (1993) Histology and physiology of tissue expansion. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 19:1074–1078
Lockwood T (1995) High-lateral-tension abdominoplasty with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 96:603–615
Lockwood T (1999) Reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy with superficial fascial system suspension. Plast Reconstr Surg 103:1411–1420
Lockwood TE (1991) Superficial fascial system (SFS) of the trunk and extremities: a new concept. Plast Reconstr Surg 87:1009–1018
Miles AW, Gheduzzi S (2009) Basic biomechanics and biomaterials. Surg Oxf 27:90–95
Muntan CD, Sundine MJ, Rink RD, Acland RD (2000) Inframammary fold: a histologic reappraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:549–556 discussion 57
Nava M, Quattrone P, Riggio E (1998) Focus on the breast fascial system: a new approach for inframammary fold reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1034–1045
Riggio E, Quattrone P, Nava M (2000) Anatomical study of the breast superficial fascial system: the inframammary fold unit. Eur J Plast Surg 23:310–315
Samani A, Bishop J, Yaffe MJ, Plewes DB (2001) Biomechanical 3-D finite element modeling of the human breast using MRI data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:271–279
Song AY, Askari M, Azemi E, Alber S, Hurwitz DJ, Marra KG et al (2006) Biomechanical properties of the superficial fascial system. Aesthet Surg J 26:395–403
Sutradhar A, Miller MJ (2013) In vivo measurement of breast skin elasticity and breast skin thickness. Skin Res Technol 19:e191–e199
Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:1396–1409 discussion 410–415
Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high-five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:35S–45S
Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2150–2159
Tepole AB, Ploch CJ, Wong J, Gosain AK, Kuhl E (2011) Growing skin: a computational model for skin expansion in reconstructive surgery. J Mech Phys Solids 59:2177–2190
Young W, Budynas R (2001) Roark’s formulas for stress and strain, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York
Disclosure
Dr. Manuel R. Vegas declares that he has no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Martin del Yerro is a consultant to Mentor Corporation (Santa Barbara, Calif.) but has not received stipends or any other form of payment for conducting or publicizing the research described in the article. He has no commercial associations that might create a conflict of interest with regard to the information presented in the article. He has no patent licensing arrangements, stock ownership, or other equity interests in companies that manufacture products mentioned in the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vegas, M.R., Martin del Yerro, J.L. Stiffness, Compliance, Resilience, and Creep Deformation: Understanding Implant-Soft Tissue Dynamics in the Augmented Breast: Fundamentals Based on Materials Science. Aesth Plast Surg 37, 922–930 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0197-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0197-y