Aim:Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy is a challenging operation for esthetic plastic surgeons.Complication and revision rates following augmentation mammoplasty or mastopexy are less commonly seen when these two pr...Aim:Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy is a challenging operation for esthetic plastic surgeons.Complication and revision rates following augmentation mammoplasty or mastopexy are less commonly seen when these two procedures are performed separately.However,when the two procedures are combined,the complication rate is reported exponentially higher when compared with its individual component carried out separately.The current retrospective chart review is a comparative analysis of the two procedures performed by a single surgeon.Methods:Retrospective data were collected using patient’s charts.All patients who had augmentation mammoplasty(Group A)or simultaneous augmentation with mastopexy(Group B)in muscle splitting biplane using round cohesive gel textured silicone implants by a single surgeon were included.Results:A total of 1,406 patients had consecutive augmentation mammoplasty or simultaneous augmentation mastopexy.Augmentation mammoplasty(Group A)included 1,298 and simultaneous augmentation with mastopexy(Group B)had 108 patients,respectively.The mean age of the patients in Group A and B was 29.6 years and 32.2 years,respectively(P=0.006).The mean size of the implants in Group A and B was 340 mL and 308 mL(P=0.001),respectively.Wound infection in Group A and B was seen in 0.6%and 3.7%,respectively.Wound breakdown was seen in 1.1%in Group A as compared to 6.5%in Group B(P=0.001).Revision surgeries were performed in 1.4%and 11.1%of Group A and B,respectively(P=0.001).Conclusion:There was a statistically and clinically significant higher rate of complications and revision rate noted in simultaneous augmentation with mastopexy(Group B)as compared to augmentation mammoplasty alone(Group A).However,the rise in complications rate is sum of the complications of the two individual components performed and not exponential.展开更多
Aim:Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure with a high satisfaction rate.Multiplane pocket was described for simultaneous internal mastopexy and augmentation using inframammary crease incision for ...Aim:Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure with a high satisfaction rate.Multiplane pocket was described for simultaneous internal mastopexy and augmentation using inframammary crease incision for selected primary and secondary mammoplasties.The use of the technique is presented with a larger experience for correction of ptosis in a patient presenting for revision surgery following subglandular augmentation mammoplasty.Methods:A retrospectively collected data were analyzed using the Excel Spread Sheet.A total of 25 patients had multiplane augmentation with the internal mastopexy following augmentation mammoplasty in subglandular pocket.Data of 25 patients who had their revision surgery in multiplane were analyzed.Results:The group included 25 patients with a mean age of 36.6 years(range:25-54 years)with mean implant duration of 6.4 years(range:1.5-13 years).Twenty-three of the patients were nonsmokers,1 smoker and 1 patient’s smoking status was not mentioned.Eighteen patients presented with grade I capsular contracture,3 patients with grade II contracture and 4 patients had a combination of grade I and II capsular contracture.Pseudoptosis was present in 6,class B ptosis in 6,A/B ptosis in 3,water-down deformity in 5 and rippling in 5 patients.Average preoperative size of implant used initially was 334.4 mL(range:250-340 mL)and the mean implant size selected for revision surgery was 416 mL(range:260-525 mL).Mean follow-up time was 18 months(range:6-48 months).Of 25 patients,21 had a bilateral procedure whereas the technique was used unilaterally in 4 patients for the correction of asymmetry.All patients had a single dose of intravenous antibiotics and followed by an oral course for 5 days,there was no infection noted in the series.In the current series,no patient required revision surgery following the multiplane internal mastopexy.Conclusion:Multiplane internal mastopexy can be useful in selected cases of revisionary augmentation mammoplasty.展开更多
Aim:Simultaneous or single stage mastopexy with augmentation is challenging,unique and commonly performed by a plastic surgeon.In this procedure pocket for implant placement,marking for envelope reduction and type of ...Aim:Simultaneous or single stage mastopexy with augmentation is challenging,unique and commonly performed by a plastic surgeon.In this procedure pocket for implant placement,marking for envelope reduction and type of implants used can affect the outcome of the procedure.Muscle splitting pocket for mastopexy is a plane described by the author for implant placement with a short term follow up.The use and outcome of the technique is presented with a larger series and a long term follows up to evaluate the efficacy of the procedure.Methods:Retrospective data was collected.Augmentation was performed using muscle splitting technique and periareolar,vertical scar and wise pattern were used for skin reduction and mastopexy.A single surgeon performed all procedures.Results:In total 108 patients mastopexy with augmentation in muscle splitting technique.The mean age of the patient was 32.2 years(range:18-67 years)with an average follow up of 4.5 years(range:3 months to 10 years).All patients had round textured cohesive gel silicone implants with a mean size of 308 cc(range:200-555 cc).Wound infection was seen in 4(3.7%),wound breakdown in 7(6.5%)patients.Drains were used in 25(23.1%).All patients were treated as day cases and revision surgery was performed in 12(11.1%).There was no hematoma,deep venous thrombosis(DVT)or nipple areolar complex in the series.Conclusion:Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy in muscle splitting pocket can be performed with good aesthetic results along with an acceptable revision rate.展开更多
Explantation following aesthetic mammoplasty without implant replacement is quite uncommon and often leaves the patient worse off than prior to mammoplasty.A case is presented here in which patient’s own tissue was u...Explantation following aesthetic mammoplasty without implant replacement is quite uncommon and often leaves the patient worse off than prior to mammoplasty.A case is presented here in which patient’s own tissue was used as an inferior dermoglandular flap for autologous breast remodeling.Inferior dermal flap has been described for breast reconstruction and simultaneous augmentation mammoplasty with mastopexy for prosthesis cover in the lower pole of the breast,but its use following explantation without implant replacement has not been described for breast remodeling and volume conservation.展开更多
文摘Aim:Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy is a challenging operation for esthetic plastic surgeons.Complication and revision rates following augmentation mammoplasty or mastopexy are less commonly seen when these two procedures are performed separately.However,when the two procedures are combined,the complication rate is reported exponentially higher when compared with its individual component carried out separately.The current retrospective chart review is a comparative analysis of the two procedures performed by a single surgeon.Methods:Retrospective data were collected using patient’s charts.All patients who had augmentation mammoplasty(Group A)or simultaneous augmentation with mastopexy(Group B)in muscle splitting biplane using round cohesive gel textured silicone implants by a single surgeon were included.Results:A total of 1,406 patients had consecutive augmentation mammoplasty or simultaneous augmentation mastopexy.Augmentation mammoplasty(Group A)included 1,298 and simultaneous augmentation with mastopexy(Group B)had 108 patients,respectively.The mean age of the patients in Group A and B was 29.6 years and 32.2 years,respectively(P=0.006).The mean size of the implants in Group A and B was 340 mL and 308 mL(P=0.001),respectively.Wound infection in Group A and B was seen in 0.6%and 3.7%,respectively.Wound breakdown was seen in 1.1%in Group A as compared to 6.5%in Group B(P=0.001).Revision surgeries were performed in 1.4%and 11.1%of Group A and B,respectively(P=0.001).Conclusion:There was a statistically and clinically significant higher rate of complications and revision rate noted in simultaneous augmentation with mastopexy(Group B)as compared to augmentation mammoplasty alone(Group A).However,the rise in complications rate is sum of the complications of the two individual components performed and not exponential.
文摘Aim:Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure with a high satisfaction rate.Multiplane pocket was described for simultaneous internal mastopexy and augmentation using inframammary crease incision for selected primary and secondary mammoplasties.The use of the technique is presented with a larger experience for correction of ptosis in a patient presenting for revision surgery following subglandular augmentation mammoplasty.Methods:A retrospectively collected data were analyzed using the Excel Spread Sheet.A total of 25 patients had multiplane augmentation with the internal mastopexy following augmentation mammoplasty in subglandular pocket.Data of 25 patients who had their revision surgery in multiplane were analyzed.Results:The group included 25 patients with a mean age of 36.6 years(range:25-54 years)with mean implant duration of 6.4 years(range:1.5-13 years).Twenty-three of the patients were nonsmokers,1 smoker and 1 patient’s smoking status was not mentioned.Eighteen patients presented with grade I capsular contracture,3 patients with grade II contracture and 4 patients had a combination of grade I and II capsular contracture.Pseudoptosis was present in 6,class B ptosis in 6,A/B ptosis in 3,water-down deformity in 5 and rippling in 5 patients.Average preoperative size of implant used initially was 334.4 mL(range:250-340 mL)and the mean implant size selected for revision surgery was 416 mL(range:260-525 mL).Mean follow-up time was 18 months(range:6-48 months).Of 25 patients,21 had a bilateral procedure whereas the technique was used unilaterally in 4 patients for the correction of asymmetry.All patients had a single dose of intravenous antibiotics and followed by an oral course for 5 days,there was no infection noted in the series.In the current series,no patient required revision surgery following the multiplane internal mastopexy.Conclusion:Multiplane internal mastopexy can be useful in selected cases of revisionary augmentation mammoplasty.
文摘Aim:Simultaneous or single stage mastopexy with augmentation is challenging,unique and commonly performed by a plastic surgeon.In this procedure pocket for implant placement,marking for envelope reduction and type of implants used can affect the outcome of the procedure.Muscle splitting pocket for mastopexy is a plane described by the author for implant placement with a short term follow up.The use and outcome of the technique is presented with a larger series and a long term follows up to evaluate the efficacy of the procedure.Methods:Retrospective data was collected.Augmentation was performed using muscle splitting technique and periareolar,vertical scar and wise pattern were used for skin reduction and mastopexy.A single surgeon performed all procedures.Results:In total 108 patients mastopexy with augmentation in muscle splitting technique.The mean age of the patient was 32.2 years(range:18-67 years)with an average follow up of 4.5 years(range:3 months to 10 years).All patients had round textured cohesive gel silicone implants with a mean size of 308 cc(range:200-555 cc).Wound infection was seen in 4(3.7%),wound breakdown in 7(6.5%)patients.Drains were used in 25(23.1%).All patients were treated as day cases and revision surgery was performed in 12(11.1%).There was no hematoma,deep venous thrombosis(DVT)or nipple areolar complex in the series.Conclusion:Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy in muscle splitting pocket can be performed with good aesthetic results along with an acceptable revision rate.
文摘Explantation following aesthetic mammoplasty without implant replacement is quite uncommon and often leaves the patient worse off than prior to mammoplasty.A case is presented here in which patient’s own tissue was used as an inferior dermoglandular flap for autologous breast remodeling.Inferior dermal flap has been described for breast reconstruction and simultaneous augmentation mammoplasty with mastopexy for prosthesis cover in the lower pole of the breast,but its use following explantation without implant replacement has not been described for breast remodeling and volume conservation.
