Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2019

01-08-2019 | Breast Augmentation | Original Article

Complications Following Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: A Meta-analysis

Authors: Shangshan Li, Dali Mu, Chunjun Liu, Minqiang Xin, Su Fu, Boyang Xu, Zifei Li, Jun Qi, Jie Luan

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Subpectoral and prepectoral planes have commonly been used in implant-based breast augmentation. The effect of implant plane on complication rate was still unclear. This meta-analysis demonstrated current evidence with regard to comparison of complication rates between subpectoral and prepectoral breast augmentation.

Methods

Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched to December 2018. The results of selected studies were meta-analyzed to obtain a pooled odds ratio of the effect of subpectoral versus prepectoral breast augmentation on rates of complications.

Results

There were significantly lower rates of capsular contracture and hematoma but higher rates of implant displacement and animation deformity in the subpectoral group compared with the prepectoral group. There was no significant difference with regard to rates of reoperation, seroma, rippling, infection and implant rupture between these two groups.

Conclusions

Subpectoral and subglandular breast augmentations both have their merits and demerits with regard to complications. The pros and cons of each procedure should be fully explained to patients and selection of implant plane should be considered more comprehensively.

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 www.​springer.​com/​00266.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2005) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:2005–2016PubMed Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2005) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:2005–2016PubMed
6.
go back to reference Shi H, Cao C, Li X et al (2015) A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:18737–18743PubMedPubMedCentral Shi H, Cao C, Li X et al (2015) A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:18737–18743PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRef Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Seify H, Sullivan K, Hester TR (2005) Preliminary (3 years) experience with smooth wall silicone gel implants for primary breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 54:231–235 (discussion 235) PubMed Seify H, Sullivan K, Hester TR (2005) Preliminary (3 years) experience with smooth wall silicone gel implants for primary breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 54:231–235 (discussion 235) PubMed
13.
go back to reference Vazquez B, Given KS, Houston GC (1987) Breast augmentation: a review of subglandular and submuscular implantation. Aesthet Plast Surg 11:101–105CrossRef Vazquez B, Given KS, Houston GC (1987) Breast augmentation: a review of subglandular and submuscular implantation. Aesthet Plast Surg 11:101–105CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Puckett CL, Croll GH, Reichel CA et al (1987) A critical look at capsule contracture in subglandular versus subpectoral mammary augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 11:23–28CrossRef Puckett CL, Croll GH, Reichel CA et al (1987) A critical look at capsule contracture in subglandular versus subpectoral mammary augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 11:23–28CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Complications Following Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: A Meta-analysis
Authors
Shangshan Li
Dali Mu
Chunjun Liu
Minqiang Xin
Su Fu
Boyang Xu
Zifei Li
Jun Qi
Jie Luan
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01404-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 4/2019 Go to the issue