Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Improvements in Transaxillary Breast Augmentation

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

Abstract

Background

Roughly 90% of breast augmentations are done through the submammary approach, yet patients, given the choice, sometimes choose the transaxillary approach, with the inconspicuous scar hidden in the axilla. Because the transaxillary approach is technically demanding and is performed relatively rarely, many plastic surgeons never master the technique.

Methods

From 1988 to 2009, 140 patients underwent transaxillary breast augmentation by the author, who developed several innovations and improvements for planning of this operation, its technical execution, and postoperative care. Among these innovations are a new implant selection system, the “boomerang incision,” the technique for inserting anatomic teardrop-shaped implants through the axilla, submuscular and subfascial implant placement, a new instrument called the breast implant pusher, and use of intermittent regional postoperative analgesia.

Results

Implementation of the aforementioned modifications and innovations improved the overall quality and consistency of surgical results. It was proved that anatomically shaped breast implants could be inserted through the axillary incision and correctly positioned in the subfascial and submuscular location. The transaxillary technique is contraindicated for patients with ptotic, asymmetric, or tubular breasts.

Conclusion

Transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty without routine endoscopic assistance is a safe method with predictable results and a high rate of patient satisfaction. The transaxillary technique offers the advantage of locating the surgical scar off the breast. It requires closer supervision during the first few postoperative months compared with the submammary or periareolar technique because it is more difficult to place and maintain implants at the proper level using the transaxillary approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cronin TD, Gerow F (1964) Augmentation mammaplasty: a new “natural feel” prosthesis. In: Transactions of the third international congress of plastic surgery. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, pp 41–49

  2. Hoehler H (1973) Breast augmentation. The axillary approach. Br J Plast Surg 26:273–276

    Google Scholar 

  3. Troques R (1972) Implantation des prostheses mammaires par incision axillaire. Nouv Presse Med 1:2409–2410

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Graf RM, Bernardes A, Auerswald A, Damasio RCC (2000) Subfascial endoscopic transaxillary augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 24:216–220

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ho LCY (1993) Endoscopic assisted transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty. Br J Plast Surg 46:332–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Price CI, Eaves FF, Nahai F, Jones G, Bostwick J (1994) Endoscopic transaxillary subpectoral breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:612–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tebbetts JB (1988) Transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty: a 9-year experience. Clin Plast Surg 15:557–568

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Giordano PA, Roulf M, Laurent B, Mateu J (2007) Endoscopic transaxillary breast augmentation: clinical evaluation of a series of 306 patients over a 9-year period. Aesthet Surg J 27:47–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Heitmann C, Schrekenberger C, Olbrisch RR (1998) A silicone implant filled with cohesive gel: advantages and disadvantages. Eur J Plast Surg 21:329–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Niechajev I (2001) Mammary augmentation by cohesive silicone gel implants with anatomic shape—technical considerations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 25:397–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Niechajev I (2003) Innovative augmentation: body language. Plast Cosmet Surg 11:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Maldick RA (1993) “No touch” submuscular saline breast augmentation technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 17:183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hvilsom GB, Henriksen TF, Hölmich LR, Friis S (2008) Komplikationer efter bystaugmentation—Resultat fra dansk plastikkirurgisk mammaregister. In: Proceedings of XXXIInd congress of the Scandinavian Association of Plastic Surgeons, Aarhus, Denmark, p 54 [in Danish]

  15. Benito-Ruiz J (2004) Subfascial breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1088–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Momeni A, Padron NT, Föhn M, Bannasch H, Borges J, Ryu SM, Stark B (2005) Safety, complications and satisfaction of patients undergoing submuscular breast augmentation via the inframammary and endoscopic transaxillary approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg 29:558–564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Munhoz AM, Fells E, Arruda E, Montag E, Okada A, Aldrighi C, Aldrighi J, Gemperli R, Ferreira MC (2006) Subfascial transaxillary breast augmentation without endoscopic assistance: technical aspects and outcome. Aesthetic Plast Surg 30:503–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L (2007) Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:697–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prado A, Andrades P, Leniz P (2007) Implications of transaxillary breast augmentation: lifetime probability of breast cancer development and sentinel node mapping interference. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:317–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shons AR (2002) Breast cancer and augmentation mammaplasty: the preoperative consultation (editorial). Plast Reconstr Surg 109:383–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Buschpiegel C, Ono C, Montag E, Fells E, Arruda E, Sturtz G, Kovac P, Filassi JR, Gemperli R, Ferreira MC (2005) The feasibility of sentinel lymph node detection in patients with previous transaxillary implant breast augmentation: preliminary results. Aesthetic Plast Surg 29:163–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Graf RM, Canan LW, Romano GG, Tolazzi ARD, Cruz GAO (2007) Implications of transaxillary breast augmentation: lifetime probability of breast cancer development and sentinel node mapping interference. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:322–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Munhoz AM, Ferreira MC (2007) Implications of transaxillary breast augmentation: lifetime probability of breast cancer development and sentinel node mapping interference. Aesthetic Plast Surg 31:320–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

The author has no financial interest in any of the medical companies mentioned in this article. He has lectured in several courses and symposia organized by Eurosilicone Ltd. and has received lecturer fees. He has no stocks and holds no appointed position with any medical firm.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Niechajev.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Niechajev, I. Improvements in Transaxillary Breast Augmentation. Aesth Plast Surg 34, 322–329 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9437-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9437-6

Keywords

Navigation