Abstract
Since the initial use of implants for breast augmentation, surgeons have been looking for a proper plane for the breast augmentation. The orthodox implant plane is submuscular or subglandular. The subglandular plane usually has implant edge visibility, especially in thin women, and causes a high incidence of fibrous capsular contracture. The submuscular plane can lead to implant distortion, a two-peak breast, and a relatively long recovery period. The subfascial placement of breast implants has many of the advantages of the submuscular position without lifting the muscle attachments from the ribs. The subfascial placement is definitely less injurious to the patient than the submuscular procedure; therefore, subfascial breast augmentation can be highly recommended.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Biggs TM, Yarish RS: Augmentation mammaplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;85(3):368–372
Silverman BG, Bright RA, Kaczmarek RG, Arrowsmith-Lowe JB, Kressler DA: Reported complications of silicone gel breast implants. An epidemiologic review. Ann Intern Med 1996;124(8):744–756
Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O’Fallon WM, Beard CM, Kurland LT, Melton LJ III: Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 1997;336(10):677–682
Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P: The effect of silicone gel-filled implants on mammography. Cancer 1991;68(5 suppl):1159–1163
Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A: Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111(2):904–908
Graf RM, Bernardes A, Auerswald A, Damasio RCC: Subfascial endoscopic transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000;24(3):216–220
Jinde L, Jianliang S, Xiaoping C, Xiaoyan T, Jiaging L, Qun M, Bo L: Anatomy and clinical significance of pectoral fascia. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118(7):1557–1560
Würinger E, Mader N, Posch E, Holle J: Nerve and vessel supplying ligamentous suspension of the mammary gland. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;101(6):1486–1493
Mugea TT: Subfascial breast augmentation. XIIas Jornadas Mediterraneas de confrontations terapeuticas en cirurgia cosmetica, 30 April–2 May 2004, Barcelona
Hidalgo DA: Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105(6):2202–2216
Spear SL, Beckenstein M: The inframammary approach to augmentation mammaplasty. In: Spear SL (ed). Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art. Philadelphia, Lippincott-Raven 1998
Jones FR, Tauruas AP: A periareolar incision for augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973;51(6):641–644
Stoff-Khalili MA, Scholze R, Morgan WR, Metcalf JD: Subfascial periareolar augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114(5):1289–1291
Mugea TT: Aesthetic complications in breast aesthetic surgery—can we avoid it? Limberg Meeting of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 22–24 September 2005, St. Petersburg
Neifert M, DeMarzo S, Seacat J, Young D, Leff M, Orleans M: The influence of breast surgery, breast appearance, and pregnancy-induced breast changes on lactation sufficiency as measured by infant weight gain. Birth 1990;17(1)31–38
Hurst NM: Lactation after augmentation mammaplasty. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87(1):30–34
Tebbetts JB: Does fascia provide additional, meaningful coverage over the breast implant? Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113(2):777–779
Tebbetts JB: Subfascial periareolar augmentation mammaplasty (discussion). Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114:1289
Würinger E, Tschabitscher M: New aspects of the topographical anatomy of the mammary gland regarding its neurovascular supply along a regular ligamentous suspension. Eur J Morphol 2002;40(3):181–189
Goes JC, Landecker A: Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years of experience with the subfascial plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003;27(3):178–184
Benito-Ruiz J: Subfascial breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;113(3):1088–1089
Barbato C, Pena M, Triana C, Zambrano MA: Augmentation mammaplasty using the retrofascia approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004;28(3):148–152
Papillon J: Pros and cons of subpectoral implantation. Clin Plast Surg 1976;3(3):321–337
Schlenz I, Kuzbari R, Gruber H, Holle J: The sensitivity of the nipple–areola complex: an anatomic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000;105(3):905–909
Stoff-Khalili MA, Scholze R, Morgan W, Metcalf JD: Subfascial periareolar augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;114(5):1280–1288
Duman A, Dincler M, Findik H, Uzunismail A: Further advantages of using the subfascial implant in terms of capsular formation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115(3):950–952
Rohrich RJ, Kenkel JM, Adams WP: Preventing capsular contracture in breast augmentation: in search of the Holy Grail. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;103(6):1759:1760
Burkhardt BR: Prevention of capsular contracture. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;103(6):1769
Riefkohl R: Augmentation mammaplasty. In: McCarthy JG (ed). Plastic Surgery, vol. 6. Philadelphia, Harcourt Brace 1990, pp 3879–3884
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mugea, T. (2009). Subfascial Prepectoral Implant Using the Inframammary Approach. In: Shiffman, M. (eds) Breast Augmentation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78948-2_47
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78948-2_47
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-78947-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-78948-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)