Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Chinese Women’s Preferences and Concerns regarding Incision Location for Breast Augmentation Surgery: A Survey of 216 Patients

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

Abstract

Background

The axillary approach is the dominant incision used in China for breast augmentation. Systematic preoperative education regarding incision locations for breast augmentation is scarce in China. In this study, we surveyed Chinese patients to ascertain their preferences and concerns for incision location based on a comprehensive understanding of different incisions.

Methods

We used a literature review, patient interviews, and expert panels to develop the preoperative education material and questionnaire regarding different incision locations. The respondents were requested to choose one incision location before and after they received the preoperative education. Their initial choices and final decisions as well as the reasons for these choices were recorded and analyzed. Multinomial logistic regression was preformed to analyze the affecting factors on the incision choice.

Results

A total of 216 Chinese women participated in the study between 2012.5 and 2014.1. Initially, 176 (81.48 %) women chose axillary incision, 27 (12.50 %) chose periareolar incision, and 13 (6.02 %) chose inframammary fold (IMF) incision. After they received preoperative education on incisions, the axillary and periareolar approaches decreased to 117 (54.17 %) and 13 (6.02 %), respectively, while IMF increased to 86 (39.81 %). The easily hidden scar (43.98 %), lower capsular contracture rate (23.15 %), and lower possibility of injury to the breast parenchyma (17.13 %) ranked as the top 3 reasons for the incision choice. Patients with a preoperative cup size of AA were 12.316 times more likely to choose the axillary approach relative to the IMF approach compared with those with a B cup (P = 0.044; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.069–141.923). For each one-unit increase in BMI, the odds that a patient would choose the axillary versus the periareolar approach decreased by 32.4 % (P = 0.049; 95 % CI 0.457–0.999).

Conclusions

The systematic and objective preoperative education material and questionnaire regarding different incision locations helped the Chinese patients make truly informed decisions and express their personal requirements. The axillary approach was the first option for more than half of Chinese women mainly because an easily hidden scar was considered the primary concern during the decision-making process. The patients with a low BMI and a small preoperative breast cup size were more likely to choose an axillary incision. However, a considerable number of Chinese women would choose the IMF incision and value its superiority in terms of a lower capsular contracture rate, less tissue trauma, and lower possibility of injury to the breast parenchyma.

Level of Evidence IV

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reece EM, Ghavami A, Hoxworth RE, Alvarez SA, Hatef DA, Brown S, Rohrich RJ (2009) Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns. Aesthet Surg J 29:116–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sevin A, Sevin K, Senen D, Deren O, Adanali G, Erdogan B (2006) Augmentation mammaplasty: retrospective analysis of 210 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 30:651–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheng MH, Huang JJ (2009) Augmentation mammaplasty in asian women. Semin Plast Surg 23:48–54

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chinese Society of Plastic Surgery (2013) Guidelines for breast augmentation with silicone implants. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi 29:1–4

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alpert BS, Lalonde DH (2008) MOC-PS(SM) CME Article: breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: redefining the patient and surgeon experience. Mosby Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tebbetts JB (2006) Axillary endoscopic breast augmentation: processes derived from a 28-year experience to optimize outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:53S–80S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2006) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:188S–196S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Niechajev I (2010) Improvements in transaxillary breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:322–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Momeni A, Padron NT, Bannasch H, Borges J, Stark BG (2006) Endoscopic transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty: a safe and predictable procedure. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59:1076–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kolker AR, Austen WG Jr, Slavin SA (2010) Endoscopic-assisted transaxillary breast augmentation: minimizing complications and maximizing results with improvements in patient selection and technique. Ann Plast Surg 64:667–673

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Araco A, Araco F, Sorge R, Gravante G (2011) Sensitivity of the nipple-areola complex and areolar pain following aesthetic breast augmentation in a retrospective series of 1200 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:984–989

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang GJ, Wichmann JL, Mills DC (2011) Transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty: a single surgeon’s 20-year experience. Aesthet Surg J 31:781–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD, Hill LM, Spear SL (2012) Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 32:456–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiener TC (2008) Relationship of incision choice to capsular contracture. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32:303–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bartsich S, Ascherman JA, Whittier S, Yao CA, Rohde C (2011) The breast: a clean-contaminated surgical site. Aesthetic Surg J 31:802–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Adams WP (2008) The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1892–1900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Hölmich LR, Mclaughlin JK, Kjøller K, Høyer AP, Olsen JH, Friis S (2005) Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 54:343–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Okwueze MI, Spear ME, Zwyghuizen AM, Braün SA, Ajmal N, Nanney LB, Hagan KF, Wolfort SF, Shack RB (2006) Effect of augmentation mammaplasty on breast sensation. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:73–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mofid MM, Klatsky SA, Singh NK, Nahabedian MY (2006) Nipple-areola complex sensitivity after primary breast augmentation: a comparison of periareolar and inframammary incision approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1694–1698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pitanguy I, Vaena M, Radwanski HN, Nunes D, Vargas AF (2007) Relative implant volume and sensibility alterations after breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:238–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stutman RL, Codner M, Mahoney A, Amei A (2012) Comparison of breast augmentation incisions and common complications. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:1096–1104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lista F, Ahmad J (2013) Evidence-based medicine: augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1684–1696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Blount AL, Martin MD, Lineberry KD, Kettaneh N, Alfonso DR (2013) Capsular contracture rate in a low-risk population after primary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 33:516–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hammond D, Handel N, Canady J, Wixtrom RN (2014) Impact of surgical approach, together with placement and breast implant texturing, on capsular contracture: an analysis of 10-year prospective multicenter data. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:90–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2014) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:567e–583e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Spencer KW (1995) Patient education materials for augmentation mammaplasty patients. Plast Surg Nurs 15:190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fishman JRA (2007) Post-operative information augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Surg Nurs 27:168–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gladfelter J (2003) The internet as and educational tool for breast augmentation. Plast Surg Nurs 23:121–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Spector D, Mayer DK, Knafl K, Pusic A (2010) Not what I expected informational needs of women undergoing breast surgery. Plast Surg Nurs 30:70–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dowden RV (2003) Who decides the breast augmentation parameters? Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1937–1940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tebbetts JB (2002) An approach that integrates patient education and informed consent in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 110:971–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Naidu NS, Patrick PA (2011) The influence of career stage, practice type and location, and physician’s sex on surgical practices among board-certified plastic surgeons performing breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 31:941–952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1300–1310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Spear SL, Murphy DK (2014) Allergan Silicone Breast Implant USCCSG. Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:1354–1361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP (2012) Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 32:709–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cunningham B (2007) The Mentor core study on silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:19S–29S; discussion 30S–32S

  40. Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP (2007) Style USCCSG. Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:40S–48S

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB et al (2013) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1115–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Berry MG, Cucchiara V, Davies DM (2010) Breast augmentation: part II—adverse capsular contracture. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:2098–2107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH (2013) Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:1165–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Peking Union Medical College Graduate Students Creation Fund (2013-1002-10). The authors acknowledge and thank the following experts for their invaluable assistance as reviewers of the preoperative education material and questionnaire about incision locations: Guorui Liu, Chief Nurse of Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College; Dr. Ling Sun, School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University; Dr. Yu Shi, Psychological Department of Chinese People’s Armed Police General Hospital.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aesthetic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100144, China

    Jingjing Sun, Chunjun Liu, Dali Mu, Yi He & Jie Luan

  2. VIP Department, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

    Keming Wang

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China

    Sainan Zhu

Authors
  1. Jingjing Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chunjun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dali Mu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keming Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sainan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yi He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jie Luan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jie Luan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, J., Liu, C., Mu, D. et al. Chinese Women’s Preferences and Concerns regarding Incision Location for Breast Augmentation Surgery: A Survey of 216 Patients. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 214–226 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0457-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0457-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation