Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relative Implant Volume and Sensibility Alterations After Breast Augmentation

  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Recent studies have provided diverging results regarding the factors that may affect sensibility after primary breast augmentation. Implant volume is believed to be an important factor, but the relation of implant size to breast volume has not been adequately addressed. In addition, the literature shows that a conflict exists when the periareolar and inframammary approaches are compared. This study aimed to refine the volumetric analysis comparing the implant and final breast size as well as the intrinsic association of these two factors with postoperative sensory alteration of the breast.

Methods

A prospective study investigated patients who underwent aesthetic breast augmentation between June 2004 and October 2005 (i.e., a 16-month period) at the Ivo Pitanguy Institute. The sensibility in nine regions of the breast was tested before and after surgery using Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. Breast sizers were used to compare the pre- and postoperative breast volumes. Statistical analysis of the data took into consideration the relative volume of the implant, the surgical approach, the presence of minor complications, the breast-feeding history, and the subjective evaluation of sensory changes in the patients.

Results

A total of 37 patients who underwent breast augmentation were examined preoperatively. The relative volume of the implant was found to be associated with sensibility alterations. No difference was found between the periareolar and inframammary incision approaches. Other factors such as previous breast-feeding, minor complications, and subjective alterations were not associated with sensory alterations.

Conclusions

The study findings suggest that larger implants and smaller breasts show an increased association with postoperative sensory alterations of the breast. Plastic surgeons and their patients should be aware of this possibility. Implant volume should be considered together with breast size to avoid sensory complications, and this is summarized in the concept of relative volume.

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. Information provided in the official ASPS site, this information from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons is currently available at the same electronic address online. Retrieved May 12, 2006 at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=17890. American Society of Plastic Surgery

  2. Fiala TGS, Lee WPA, May JW: Augmentation mammaplasty: Results of a patient survey. Ann Plast Surg 30:503, 1993

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hetter GP: Satisfactions and dissatisfactions of patients with augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 64:151, 1979

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM: Breast sensation before and after plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:1, 1976

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schlenz I, Rigel S, Schemper ME, Kuzbari R: Alteration of nipple and areola sensitivity by reduction mammaplasty: A prospective comparison of five techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 115:743, 2005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mofid M, Dellon L, Elias J, Nahabedian M: Quantification of breast sensibility following reduction mammaplasty: A comparison of inferior and medial pedicle techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2283, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Terzis JK, Vincent MP, Wilkins LM, Rutledge K, Deane LM: Breast sensibility: A neurophysiological appraisal in the normal breast. Ann Plast Surg 19:318, 1987

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mofid M, MD, Klatsky S, MD, Singh N, Nahabedian M, MD: Nipple–areola complex sensitivity after primary breast augmentation: A comparison of periareolar and inframammary incision approaches. Plast Reconstr Surg117:1694, 2006

  10. Nahabedian MY: Effect of augmentation mammaplasty on breast sensation: Discussion. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:84, 2006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tairych GV, Kuzbari R, Rigel S, Todoroff BP, Schneider B, Deutinger M: Normal cutaneous sensibility of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:701, 1998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez F, Brown F, Gold M, Walton R, Shafer B: Preoperative and postoperative nipple–areola sensibility in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:809, 1993

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Benediktsson KP, Perbeck L, Geigant E, Solders G: Touch sensibility in the breast after subcutaneous and immediate reconstruction with a prosthesis. Br J Plast Surg 50:443, 1997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schlenz I, Kuzbari R, Gruber H, Holle J: The sensitivity of the nipple–areola complex: An anatomic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:905, 2000

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Farina MA, Newby BG, Alani HM: Innervation of the nipple–areola complex. Plast Reconstr Surg 66:497, 1980

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaspars J, Posma A, Van Immerseel A, Gittenberger-de-Groot A: The cutaneous innervation of the female breast and nipple–areola complex: Implications for surgery. Br J Plast Surg 50:249, 1997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. França AL, Scevola MC, Fachin SD, França PF, França NC: Mamasize: A new auxiliary instrument in the planning of enlargement mammaplasty (Mamasize: um novo instrumento auxiliar no planejamento das mamoplastias). Rev Soc Bras Cir Plas 20:204, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  18. Young VL, Nemecek JR, Nemecek DA: The efficacy of breast augmentation: Breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:958, 1994

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Spear SL, Matsuba H, Little J III: The medial periareolar approach to submuscular augmentation mammaplasty under local anesthesia. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:599, 1989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pitanguy I: Transareolar incision for augmentation mammaplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 2:363, 1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tebbets JB: Transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty: Long-term follow-up and refinements. Plast Reconstr Surg 74:497, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  22. Banbury J, Yetman R, Lucas A, et al. Prospective analysis of the outcome of subpectoral breast augmentation: Sensory changes, muscle function, and body image. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:701, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sarhadi N, Dunn J, Lee F, Soutar D: An anatomical study of the nerve supply of the breast, including the nipple and areola. Br J Plast Surg 49:156, 1996

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors express their gratitude to Mr. Clayton Amaral Domingues, PhD., for his expertise in the statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, The Carlos Chagas Institute of Postgraduate Medical Studies, and The Ivo Pitanguy Institute, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Ivo Pitanguy M.D., Michel Vaena L.H.T., M.D., Henrique N. Radwanski M.D., Daniel Nunes M.D. & André F. Vargas M.D.

  2. Rua Dona Mariana, 143 suite F 22, 22280-020, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Henrique N. Radwanski M.D.

Authors
  1. Ivo Pitanguy M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michel Vaena L.H.T., M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henrique N. Radwanski M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Nunes M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. André F. Vargas M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrique N. Radwanski M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pitanguy, I., Vaena, M., Radwanski, H.N. et al. Relative Implant Volume and Sensibility Alterations After Breast Augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 31, 238–243 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0173-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0173-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation