Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mammoplasty: A 13-Year Outcome Analysis of 1511 Primary Augmentation Mammoplasties

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

Abstract

Background

Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure by plastic surgeons with a high satisfaction outcome. Muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty was first described in 2007 and has been since used for primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasty as well as for primary and secondary augmentation mastopexy procedures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data for muscle splitting primary augmentation mammoplasties performed between October 2005 and October 2018 was carried out.

Results

A total of 1511 patients had their primary augmentation mammoplasty consecutively performed in muscle splitting pocket. Mean age of the patient was 29.4 ± 8.56 years (range 18–67). Of the 1502 patients with documented implant sizes, 1272 patients had same-size implants, mean 340 cc ± 58.3 (range 170–700), and 230 patients had two different-size implants for correction of asymmetry. Of these 230 patients, mean implant size on right and left was 341 cc ± 61.5 (range 200–655) and 345 cc ± 67.4 (range 200–605), respectively. Of the 1495 known texturing, only 3.1% patients had smooth implants. Periprosthetic infection was seen in 10 patients, 38 patients had wound-healing issues and 5 patients had late seroma. Capsular contracture (CC) was recorded at three monthly, six monthly, one yearly and two yearly or longer period. Secondary procedures were performed for various reasons in 93 (6.15%) of the patients. Leading causes for revision were implant exchange in 33 (2.2%), to go for bigger size in 25 (1.65%), CC in 18 (1.2%) and implant rupture in 9 (0.6%). There was no ALCL recorded in the series.

Conclusion

Muscle splitting pocket for primary augmentation mammoplasty is a reliable, reproducible procedure with acceptable revision rate.

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 Authorswww.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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cronin TD, Gerow RM. (1964) Augmentation mammoplasty: new “natural feel” prosthesis. In: Translation of the third international congress of the plastic surgery. Excerpta medica international congress series, no. 66 Excerpta Medica, Amsterdem, pp. 41–49

  2. Baxter RA (2005) Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variation. Aesthetic Surg J 25:447–453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R et al (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Khan UD (2007) Muscle splitting breast augmentation: a new pocket in a different plane. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:553–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan UD (2010) Augmentation mastopexy in muscle-splitting biplane: an outcome of first 44 consecutive cases of mastopexies in a new pocket. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan UD (2018) One-stage mastopexy and augmentation mammoplasty in layers: outcome analysis of first 50 consecutive cases. Plast Aesthet Res 5:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan UD (2011) Multiplane technique for simultaneous submuscular breast augmentation and internal glandulopexy using inframammary crease in selected patients with early ptosis. Eur J Plast Surg 34:337–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khan UD (2015) Subglandular to muscle splitting biplane conversion for revision augmentation mammoplasty. In: Mugea TT, Schifmann MA (eds) Aesthetic surgery of the breast. 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, pp. 535–41

  9. Khan UD (2009) Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using muscle splitting biplane technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan UD (2012) High transverse capsuloplasty for the correction of malpositioned implants following augmentation mammoplasty in partial submuscular plane. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:590–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Khan UD (2009) Acquired synmastia following subglandular mammoplasty and the use of submuscular splitting biplane for its correction. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:605–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Khan UD (2010) Combining muscle splitting biplane with multilayer capsuloraphy for the correction of bottoming down following subglandular augmentation. Eur J Plast Surg 33:259–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baxter RA (2011) Update on the split-muscle technique for breast augmentation: prevention and correction of animation distortion and double bubble deformity. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:353–360

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berlanda M (2010) Muscle-splitting augmentation: personal experience with the new technique. X Mied- zynoraodowy Kongress MedycynyEstetycznej I Anti-Aging, 24–26 September 2010, Warsaw

  15. Stodell M, McArthur G, James M (2016) Bi-plane breast augmentation: a case series supporting its use and benefits. Plast Aesthet Res 3:17–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Astrauskas T, Viksraitis S, Maslauskas K, KaitarisV (2009) Comparison of two methods of breast augmentations: muscle-splitting versus traditional subpectoral method. In: Presented at the 11th Congress of ESPRAS, 26–27 September 2009, Rhodes

  17. Stumpfle RL, Pereira-Lima LF, Valiati AA, Da Mazzini GS (2012) Transaxillary muscle splitting breast augmentation: experience with 160 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:343–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan UD (2016) Augmentation mastopexy and augmentation mammoplasty: an analysis of 1,406 consecutive cases. Plast Aesthet Research 3:26–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Khan UD (2016) A long term review of augmentation mastopexy in muscle splitting biplane. Plast Aesthet Res 3:21–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Khan UD. (2013) Muscle splitting, subglandular and partial submuscular augmentation mammoplasties. A twelve year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 37(2):290–302

    Google Scholar 

  21. Khan UD (2009) Selection of breast pocket using pinch test in augmentation mammoplasty: Can it be relied in long term? Aesthet Plast Surg 33:780–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dempsey WC, Latham WD (1968) Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammoplasty: a preliminary report. Plast Reconstr Surg 42:515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Biggs TM, Yarish RS (1990) Augmentation mammoplasty: a comparative analysis. Plast Recosnstr Surg 85:368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Regnault P (1977) Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 59:72

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tebbet JB (2001) Dual-plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft tissue relationship in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pello-Ceravolo M, Del Vescovo A, Bertozzi E et al (2004) A technique to decrease breast shape deformity during muscle contraction in submuscular mammoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 28:288–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Spear SL, Scwartz J, Dayan JH et al (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:44–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nigro LC, Blanchet NP (2017) Animation deformity in postmastectomy implant based reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5:e1407

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dyrberg DL, Camilla B, Gunnarsson GL et al (2019) Breast animation deformity. Arch Plast Surg 46:7–15

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fracol M, Feld LN, Chiu WK, Kim JYS (2019) An overview of animation deformity in prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg 8(1):95–101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM et al (2018) Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant-associated animation deformity: a review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthet Surg J 38(5):519–526

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alnaif N, Safran T, Alex Viezel-Mathieu, Alhalabi B, Dionisopoulos T (2019) Treatment of breast animation deformity: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 72:781–788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Saleh DB, Callear J, Riaz M (2016) An anatomic appraisal of biplane muscle-splitting breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 36(9):1019–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Figus A, Mazocchi M, Dessy LA et al (2009) Treatment of muscular contraction deformities with botulinum toxin type A after latismus dorsi flap and subpectoral implant breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:869–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Moliver CL (2016) Commentary on: an anatomic appraisal of biplane muscle-splitting breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 36(9):1026–1028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bracaglia R, Tambasco D, Gentileschi S, D'Ettorre M (2013) Triple-plane technique for breast augmentation: solving animation deformities. Aesthet Plastic Surgery 37(4):715–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Khan UD (2013) The impact of preoperative breast implant selection on the 3-year reoperation rate. Eur J Plast Surg 36:503–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tebbets JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive case augmentation mammoplasty premarket study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1453–1457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Adams WP Jr (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 

  40. Jewell ML, Jewell JL (2010) A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30:51–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stevens WG, Harrington J, Alizadeh K, Broadway D, Zeidler K, Godinez TB. (2015) Eight-year follow-up data from the U.S. clinical trial for sientra’s FDA-approved round and shaped implants with high-strength cohesive silicone gel. Aesthet Surg J 35(S1);S3-S10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, Mahoney A, Thiels C, Nahai FR, Hester TR, Nahai F (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1300–1314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA (2006) A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1177:757–767

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengston BP, Murphy DK (2013) Ten-year results from Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Khan UD (2017) Low risk primary augmentation mammoplasty and capsular contracture using textured round cohesive silicone gel implants revisited. A long term follow up in a single surgeon’s practice. Pak J Plast Surg 5:6–19

    Google Scholar 

  46. Montemurro P, Cheema M, Heden P et al (2018) Do not fear an implant’s shape: a single surgeon’s experience of over 1200 round and shaped textured implants in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 38:254–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Calobrace MB, Schwartz MR, Zeidler KR, Pitmann TA, Cohen R, Stevens WG (2018) Long term safety of textured and smooth breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 38:38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Khan UD (2016) Pathogenesis of late breast autoinflation following augmentation mammoplasty: case series report of three late autoinflation of breast due to seroma and literature search. Plast Aesthet Res 3:31–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Deva AK, Adams WP Jr, Vickery K (2013) The role of bacterial biofilms in device-associated infection. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1319–1328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Author has not received research funding for this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Reshape ClinicReshape House, 2-4 High Street, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6QR, England, UK

    Umar Daraz Khan

Authors
  1. Umar Daraz Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umar Daraz Khan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, U.D. Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mammoplasty: A 13-Year Outcome Analysis of 1511 Primary Augmentation Mammoplasties. Aesth Plast Surg 43, 1469–1477 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01468-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01468-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation