Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2012

01-08-2012 | Original Article

Breast Augmentation with Extra-projected and High-Cohesive Dual-Gel Prosthesis 510: A Prospective Study of 75 Consecutive Cases for a New Method (the Zenith System)

Author: Egidio Riggio

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 4/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Extra-projected Natrelle 510 belongs to a new generation of silicone breast implants. A single-surgeon prospective study set out to investigate the device’s features, outcomes, and complications, and devise a proper measurement method based on the zenith system.

Methods

From December 2004 to June 2010, 75 subjects (150 implants) were enrolled in four cohorts: primary augmentation (66.7 %), primary mastopexy augmentation (17.3 %), secondary implant exchange (9.3 %), and secondary implant exchange + pexy (6.7 %). The system used to select the implant correlated the point of maximal projection (vertex-zenith) and nipple position. The surgical approach included (1) narrow pocket, preferably dual-plane; (2) device vertex 1–2.5 cm beneath nipple (zenith range = 12°–23°) related to a nipple-inframammary fold distance of 7–7.5 cm at maximal stretch and a nipple–sternum/lower-pole line distance of 4–5 cm; (3) inframammary fold lowered minimally; (4) vertex at ±1 cm from the midbreast meridian crossing the nipple; and (5) maximizing the biomechanical effects between soft-tissue dynamics, firmer gel pressure, and pectoralis major counterpressure to expand the lower skin (dynamic tension).

Results

Mean follow-up was 26.5 months (range = 6–72); in 20 subjects; follow-up was over 3 years (average = 50 months) with a 90.8 % patient satisfaction rate. This rate was lower in patients with preoperative ptosis. There was inframammary preservation with 60 % of the implants and modification in 40 % (0.80 ± 0.45 cm). The overall complication rate per implant was 16.6 % and included wound healing/scarring (7 %), malrotation (2.6 %, only 1 % after primary augmentation), rippling (2 %), capsular contracture (1.3 %), and bottoming-out (0.6 %). The revision rate was 6 %, of which 3.3 % were pocket revisions. Greater skills are required through the learning curve, patient education, case selection, planning using the nipple-vertex relationship (the zenith system), and improved surgical manipulation. Indications and contraindications were analyzed. Cosmetic results were compliant with different breast shapes, and excellent for the breast with poor projection, in thin subjects, and those with low BMI. Ptotic breast should require a larger amount of pexy, 510 did not lift the breast enough.

Conclusion

Based on vertex-nipple distance, dynamic tension, and skin extensibility, this new approach gives guidelines and methods to perform breast augmentation with extra-projected implants.

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 at www.​springer.​com/​00266.
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Hedén P (2009) Mastopexy augmentation with form stable breast implants. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):91–104PubMedCrossRef Hedén P (2009) Mastopexy augmentation with form stable breast implants. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):91–104PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Sampaio Góes JC (2010) Breast implant stability in the subfascial plane and the new shaped silicone gel breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34(1):23–28PubMedCrossRef Sampaio Góes JC (2010) Breast implant stability in the subfascial plane and the new shaped silicone gel breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34(1):23–28PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Spear SL, Hedén P (2007) Allergan’s silicone gel breast implants. Expert Rev Med Devices 4(5):699–708PubMedCrossRef Spear SL, Hedén P (2007) Allergan’s silicone gel breast implants. Expert Rev Med Devices 4(5):699–708PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Stevens WG, Pacella SJ, Gear AJ, Freeman ME, McWhorter C, Tenenbaum MJ, Stoker DA (2008) Clinical experience with a fourth-generation textured silicone gel breast implant: a review of 1012 Mentor MemoryGel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 28(6):642–647PubMedCrossRef Stevens WG, Pacella SJ, Gear AJ, Freeman ME, McWhorter C, Tenenbaum MJ, Stoker DA (2008) Clinical experience with a fourth-generation textured silicone gel breast implant: a review of 1012 Mentor MemoryGel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 28(6):642–647PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ, Deraemaecker R, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Brenner RJ, Svarvar C, Van Tetering J, Van der Weij LP (2009) Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(3):430–436 discussion 437–438PubMedCrossRef Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ, Deraemaecker R, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Brenner RJ, Svarvar C, Van Tetering J, Van der Weij LP (2009) Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(3):430–436 discussion 437–438PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Schots JM, Fechner MR, Hoogbergen MM, Van Tits HW (2010) Malrotation of the McGhan Style 510 prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(1):261–265PubMedCrossRef Schots JM, Fechner MR, Hoogbergen MM, Van Tits HW (2010) Malrotation of the McGhan Style 510 prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(1):261–265PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Riggio E (2011) Misleading malrotation of the Natrelle style 510 prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(4):1738–1740PubMedCrossRef Riggio E (2011) Misleading malrotation of the Natrelle style 510 prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(4):1738–1740PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Maher JL, Bennett DC, Grothaus P, Mahabir RC (2010) Breast augmentation: a geographical comparison. Can J Plast Surg 18(4):44–46 Maher JL, Bennett DC, Grothaus P, Mahabir RC (2010) Breast augmentation: a geographical comparison. Can J Plast Surg 18(4):44–46
12.
go back to reference Hedén P (2006) Breast augmentation with anatomic high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the Breast: principles and art, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1344–1366 Hedén P (2006) Breast augmentation with anatomic high-cohesiveness silicone gel implants. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the Breast: principles and art, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1344–1366
13.
go back to reference Tebbetts JB (2006) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7):81S–98SPubMedCrossRef Tebbetts JB (2006) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7):81S–98SPubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: quantitative tissue assessment and planning. In: Spear SL (ed), Surgery of the breast: principles and art, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1261–1288 Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: quantitative tissue assessment and planning. In: Spear SL (ed), Surgery of the breast: principles and art, vol. 2, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 1261–1288
15.
go back to reference Zeng YJ, Xu CQ, Yang J, Sun GC, Xu XH (2003) Biomechanical comparison between conventional and rapid expansion of skin. Br J Plast Surg 56(7):660–666PubMedCrossRef Zeng YJ, Xu CQ, Yang J, Sun GC, Xu XH (2003) Biomechanical comparison between conventional and rapid expansion of skin. Br J Plast Surg 56(7):660–666PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Smalls LK, Randall Wickett R, Visscher MO (2006) Effect of dermal thickness, tissue composition, and body site on skin biomechanical properties. Skin Res Technol 12(1):43–49PubMedCrossRef Smalls LK, Randall Wickett R, Visscher MO (2006) Effect of dermal thickness, tissue composition, and body site on skin biomechanical properties. Skin Res Technol 12(1):43–49PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Del Palomar AP, Calvo B, Herrero J, López J, Doblaré M (2008) A finite element model to accurately predict real deformations of the breast. Med Eng Phys 30(9):1089–1097PubMedCrossRef Del Palomar AP, Calvo B, Herrero J, López J, Doblaré M (2008) A finite element model to accurately predict real deformations of the breast. Med Eng Phys 30(9):1089–1097PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference LaRoche DP, Lussier MV, Roy SJ (2008) Chronic stretching and voluntary muscle force. J Strength Cond Res 22(2):589–596PubMedCrossRef LaRoche DP, Lussier MV, Roy SJ (2008) Chronic stretching and voluntary muscle force. J Strength Cond Res 22(2):589–596PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Gefen A, Dilmoney B (2007) Mechanics of the normal woman’s breast. Technol Health Care 15(4):259–271PubMed Gefen A, Dilmoney B (2007) Mechanics of the normal woman’s breast. Technol Health Care 15(4):259–271PubMed
20.
go back to reference Carp SA, Selb J, Fang Q, Moore R, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Boas DA (2008) Dynamic functional and mechanical response of breast tissue to compression. Opt Express 16(20):16064–16078PubMedCrossRef Carp SA, Selb J, Fang Q, Moore R, Kopans DB, Rafferty E, Boas DA (2008) Dynamic functional and mechanical response of breast tissue to compression. Opt Express 16(20):16064–16078PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2150–2159 discussion 2160–2167PubMedCrossRef Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2150–2159 discussion 2160–2167PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2007) Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(Suppl 1):8S–16S discussion 17S–18SPubMedCrossRef Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS (2007) Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(Suppl 1):8S–16S discussion 17S–18SPubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Jewell ML, Jewell JL (2010) A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30(1):51–65PubMedCrossRef Jewell ML, Jewell JL (2010) A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 30(1):51–65PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Spear SL, Dayan JH, West J (2009) The anatomy of revisions after primary breast augmentation: one surgeon’s perspective. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):157–165PubMedCrossRef Spear SL, Dayan JH, West J (2009) The anatomy of revisions after primary breast augmentation: one surgeon’s perspective. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):157–165PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP (2007) Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(Suppl 1):40S–48SPubMedCrossRef Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP (2007) Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(Suppl 1):40S–48SPubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Bengtson BP (2009) Complications, reoperations, and revisions in breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):139–156PubMedCrossRef Bengtson BP (2009) Complications, reoperations, and revisions in breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 36(1):139–156PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3):768–779 discussion 780–781PubMedCrossRef Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3):768–779 discussion 780–781PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hedén P, Jernbeck J, Hober M (2001) Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world’s largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg 28(3):531–552PubMed Hedén P, Jernbeck J, Hober M (2001) Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world’s largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg 28(3):531–552PubMed
29.
go back to reference Matteucci P, Le Roux F (2004) Double capsules related to dynamic malrotation of breast implants: a causal link? Br J Plast Surg 57(3):289PubMedCrossRef Matteucci P, Le Roux F (2004) Double capsules related to dynamic malrotation of breast implants: a causal link? Br J Plast Surg 57(3):289PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Breast Augmentation with Extra-projected and High-Cohesive Dual-Gel Prosthesis 510: A Prospective Study of 75 Consecutive Cases for a New Method (the Zenith System)
Author
Egidio Riggio
Publication date
01-08-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9889-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2012

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2012 Go to the issue

Announcements

Announcements