Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three-dimensional Evaluation of Results After Dual-Plane Breast Augmentation with and Without Internal Suture Mastopexy

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

Abstract

Background

In patients with breast atrophy and ptosis, it is necessary to correct both problems simultaneously. This study aimed to analyze breast morphological changes with a three-dimensional (3D) scanning technique to demonstrate the improvement effect of dual-plane breast augmentation combined with internal suture mastopexy.

Methods

3D breast surface scans were performed preoperatively and postoperatively in 24 patients (n = 35 breasts) undergoing internal suture mastopexy combined with prosthetic augmentation through the periareolar approach and 24 patients (48 breasts) undergoing simple dual-plane breast augmentation. Changes in linear distance, breast volume and volume distribution, breast projection, and nipple position were analyzed to assess the breast morphology.

Results

Compared with simple breast augmentation, augmentation combined with internal suture mastopexy was associated with a higher upper pole volume increase and greater medial and upward nipple displacement. After the surgery, the upper pole volume increased by an average of 10.6% in combined augmentation group and decreased by an average of 2.2% in the simple breast augmentation group. The measured breast projections were 24.8 ± 2.2% lower than expected in the combined group and 23.1 ± 4.1% lower than expected in the simple group, based on implant parameters recorded by the manufacturer. The nipple moved 0.2 ± 0.5 cm laterally, 1.6 ± 0.6 cm upward, and 2.8 ± 0.7 cm anteriorly in the combined group and 0.9 ± 0.5 cm laterally, 0.7 ± 0.6 cm upward, and 3.0 ± 0.6 cm anteriorly in the simple group.

Conclusions

Dual-plane breast augmentation in addition to internal suture mastopexy appears to reposition breast tissue from the lower pole to fill in the deficient upper breast, pull the nipple medially and superiorly, and ultimately correct mild to moderate breast ptosis.

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 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.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hong WJ, Wang HB, Lin FC, Zeng L, Luo SK (2021) Internal mastopexy: a novel method of filling the upper poles during dual-plane breast augmentation trough periareolar incision. Aesthetic Plast Surg 45:1469–1475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, Endlich M, Mueller A, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E (2007) Comparison between breast volume measurement using 3D surface imaging and classical techniques. Breast 16:137–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steen K, Isaac KV, Murphy BD, Beber B, Brown M (2018) Three-dimensional imaging and breast measurements: How predictable are we? Aesthet Surg J 38:616–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pham M, Alzul R, Elder E, French J, Cardoso J, Kaviani A, Meybodi F (2022) Evaluation of Vectra® XT 3D surface imaging technology in measuring breast symmetry and breast volume. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03087-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Swobodnik A, Klöppel M, Pape AK, Schuster T, Raith S, Kitzler E, Papadopulos NA, Machens HG, Kovacs L (2012) Objective breast symmetry evaluation using 3-D surface imaging. Breast 21:152–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, Udosic K, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E (2006) New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg 57:602–610

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu C, Luan J, Mu L, Ji K (2010) The role of three-dimensional scanning technique in evaluation of breast asymmetry in breast augmentation: a 100-case study. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2125–2132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis. Clin Plast Surg 3:193–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2013) Mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:642e–656e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khavanin N, Jordan SW, Rambachan A, Kim JYS (2014) A systematic review of single-stage augmentation-mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:922–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Artz JD, Tessler O, Clark S, Patel S, Torabi R, Moses M (2019) Can it be safe and aesthetic? An eight-year retrospective review of mastopexy with concurrent breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7:e2272

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferraro GA, De Francesco F, Razzano S, D’Andrea F, Nicoletti G (2016) Augmentation mastopexy with implant and autologous tissue for correction of moderate/severe ptosis. J Invest Surg 29:40–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tessone A, Millet E, Weissman O, Stavrou D, Nardini G, Liran A, Winkler E (2011) Evading a surgical pitfall: mastopexy–augmentation made simple. Aesthetic Plast Surg 35:1073–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Castello MF, Silvestri A, Nicoli F, Dashti T, Han S, Grassetti L, Torresetti M, Perdanasari AT, Zhang YX, Di Benedetto G, Lazzeri D (2014) Augmentation mammoplasty/mastopexy: lessons learned from 107 aesthetic cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 38:896–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Swanson E (2013) Prospective comparative clinical evaluation of 784 consecutive cases of breast augmentation and vertical mammaplasty, performed individually and in combination. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:30e–45e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Menon N (2004) One-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy: aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 28:259–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gryskiewicz J (2013) Dual-plane breast augmentation for minimal ptosis pseudoptosis (the “in-between” patient). Aesthet Surg J 33:43–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Burden WR, Kelley PM (2001) Endoscopic breast subpectoral augmentation for second-degree breast ptosis. Ann Plast Surg 46:238–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ji K, Luan J, Liu C, Mu D, Mu L, Xin M, Sun J, Yin S, Chen L (2014) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS ONE 9:e93010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hall-Findlay EJ (2010) The three breast dimensions: analysis and effecting change. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1632–1642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tepper OM, Small KH, Unger JG, Feldman DL, Kumar N, Choi M, Karp NS (2009) 3D analysis of breast augmentation defines operative changes and their relationship to implant dimensions. Ann Plast Surg 62:570–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Swanson E (2018) Photometric evaluation of long-term changes in breast shape after breast augmentation and vertical mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6:e1844

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Becker H (2012) The role of three-dimensional scanning technique in evaluation of breast asymmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:893e–894e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. De Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2129–2135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vorstenbosch J, Islur A (2017) Correlation of prediction and actual outcome of three-dimensional simulation in breast augmentation using a cloud-based program. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41:481–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kovacs L, Eder M, Zimmermann A, Müller D, Schuster T, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E, Klöppel M, Machens HG (2012) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:879–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jimenez NM, Gómez ASP (2021) Breast aesthetic preferences: analysis of 1294 surveys. Aesthetic Plast Surg 45:2088–2093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Eder M, Klöppel M, Müller D, Papadopulos NA, Machens HG, Kovacs L (2013) 3-D analysis of breast morphology changes after inverted T-scar and vertical-scar reduction mammaplasty over 12 months. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:776–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mallucci P, Branford OA (2012) Concepts in aesthetic breast dimensions: analysis of the ideal breast. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 65:8–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen L, Sun J, Mu D, Liu C, Luan J (2020) What makes a difference? Three-dimensional morphological study of parameters that determine breast aesthetics. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44:315–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hsia HC, Thomson JG (2003) Differences in breast shape preferences between plastic surgeons and patients seeking breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:312–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Bureau for Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital 202201020331, to Prof. Sheng-Kang Luo.

Funding

No external funding was received.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xin-Rui Li, Li Zeng and Wei-Jin Hong have contributed equally to the work and were considered to be co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Xin-Rui Li, Wei-Jin Hong, Fu-Chuan Lin & Sheng-Kang Luo

  2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital, 466 Middle Xin Gang Road, Guangzhou, 510317, Guangdong, China

    Xin-Rui Li, Li Zeng, Zhen-Hao Li, Fu-Chuan Lin, You-Liang Zhang & Sheng-Kang Luo

  3. Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Zhen-Hao Li & Sheng-Kang Luo

Authors
  1. Xin-Rui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Jin Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhen-Hao Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fu-Chuan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. You-Liang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sheng-Kang Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheng-Kang Luo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent was obtained from every patient prior to the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MP4 214518 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, XR., Zeng, L., Hong, WJ. et al. Three-dimensional Evaluation of Results After Dual-Plane Breast Augmentation with and Without Internal Suture Mastopexy. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 1303–1311 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03200-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-022-03200-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation