Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Rippling Following Breast Augmentation or Reconstruction: Aetiology, Emerging Treatment Options and a Novel Classification of Severity

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

An Editor’s Invited Commentary to this article was published on 28 May 2019

Abstract

Background

Implant rippling is a frequent complication following breast augmentation or implant-based reconstruction and results in significant patient dissatisfaction. Traditionally, the treatment has been to replace the implant, often placing it in a subpectoral pocket to reduce the risk of recurrence. Other techniques, such as increasing the implant size or tightening the capsule, can also be used. Recently, however, there has been much interest in alternative treatments, including fat grafting or insertion of an acellular dermal matrix.

Methods

We review the evidence base for emerging treatments and propose a classification to grade severity, based on the typical clinical presentation of rippling: Grade 1—MILD—rippling is palpable but not visible: (1a) palpable in the lower outer quadrant, (1b) palpable in the upper inner quadrant (cleavage area); Grade 2—MODERATE—rippling is visible only when the patient bends forward; Grade 3—SEVERE—rippling is visible with the patient upright.

Conclusion

Our proposed classification aims to standardise the clinical description of rippling, which will be valuable in determining the efficacy of new treatments and better characterising long-term complications from breast augmentations or reconstructions.

Level of Evidence V

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

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Busse B, Orbay H, Sahar DE (2014) Sterile acellular dermal collagen as a treatment for rippling deformity of breast. Case Rep Surg 2014:876254

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 127:1300–1310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Strasser EJ (2006) Results of subglandular versus subpectoral augmentation over time: one surgeon’s observations. Aesthet Surg J 26:45–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 117:757–767

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA (2012) Mentor contour profile gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1381–1391

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D (2007) Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prostheses: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prostheses. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60:482–489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2014) Acellular dermal matrix for reoperative breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:932–938

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Duncan DI (2001) Correction of implant rippling using allograft dermis. Aesthet Surg J 21:81–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hartzell TL, Taghinia AH, Chang J, Lin SJ, Slavin SA (2010) The use of human acellular dermal matrix for the correction of secondary deformities after breast augmentation: results and costs. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:1711–1720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2013) Efficacy of acellular dermal matrices in revisionary aesthetic breast surgery: a 6-year experience. Aesthet Surg J 33:389–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Baxter RA (2003) Intracapsular allogenic dermal grafts for breast implant-related problems. Plast Reconstr Surg 112:1692–1696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nahabedian MY, Spear SL (2011) Acellular dermal matrix for secondary procedures following prosthetic breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J 31:38S–50S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spear SL, Sinkin JC, Al-Attar A (2013) Porcine acellular dermal matrix (strattice) in primary and revision cosmetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:1140–1148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pozner JN, White JB, Newman MI (2013) Use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in revisionary cosmetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 33:681–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kling RE, Mehrara BJ, Pusic AL, Young VL, Hume KM, Crotty CA, Rubin JP (2013) Trends in autologous fat grafting to the breast: a national survey of the American society of plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:35–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kanchwala SK, Glatt BS, Conant EF, Bucky LP (2009) Autologous fat grafting to the reconstructed breast: the management of acquired contour deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 124:409–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Delay E, Garson S, Tousson G, Sinna R (2009) Fat injection to the breast: technique, results, and indications based on 880 procedures over 10 years. Aesthet Surg J 29:360–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Auclair E, Blondeel P, Del Vecchio DA (2013) Composite breast augmentation: soft-tissue planning using implants and fat. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:558–568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammond DC, O’Connor EA, Scheer JR (2015) Total envelope fat grafting: a novel approach in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:691–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gargano F, Moloney DM, Arnstein PM (2002) Use of a capsular flap to prevent palpable wrinkling of implants. Br J Plast Surg 55:269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Massiha H (2002) Scar tissue flaps for the correction of post implant breast rippling. Ann Plast Surg 48:505–507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. McGregor JC, Bahia H (2004) A possible new way of managing breast implant rippling using an autogenous fascia lata patch. Br J Plast Surg 57:372–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Collis N, Platt AJ, Batchelor AG (2001) Pectoralis major ‘Trapdoor’ flap for silicone breast implant medial knuckle deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:2133–2135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Miriam Waite, medical graphic designer at Royal Preston Hospital, for producing the figures.

Funding

The authors did not receive any funds or contributions to support this work. There are no financial conflicts of interest to declare. None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

NMP and JRS had full involvement with the literature search, content and preparation of the manuscript and agree with the final submitted document.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas M. Pantelides.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interests.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pantelides, N.M., Srinivasan, J.R. Rippling Following Breast Augmentation or Reconstruction: Aetiology, Emerging Treatment Options and a Novel Classification of Severity. Aesth Plast Surg 42, 980–985 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1117-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1117-y

Keywords

Navigation