Published in:
01-02-2016 | Original Article
New Design for Axillary Dual-Plane Endoscopic Breast Augmentation for Asians: the Feasibility of Two Types of Dual-Plane Implant Pockets in 70 Patients as Measured by the BREAST-Q
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 1/2016
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
The design methods for dual-plane implant pockets for axillary endoscopic breast augmentation vary among different countries. We applied a modified approach for an Asian population.
Methods
Seventy patients with micromastia underwent our modified approach between 2011 and 2014. Breasts were divided into two types according to the soft-tissue pinch thickness of the lower pole: type I (thickness >2 cm; Group I) and type II (thickness ≤2 cm; Group II). The levels at which the pectoralis major (PM) was severed were 6–6.5 cm and 3–4 cm below the nipple for type I and II pockets, respectively. Then, dissection of the retromammary space was continued from the severance level downward to the new inframammary fold for type I pockets, whereas no dissection was made for type II pockets. All patients completed the pre- and post-operative BREAST-Q augmentation modules.
Results
During a mean follow-up of 10 months (range, 6–12 months), patients reported higher satisfaction with breasts after surgery than before surgery (satisfaction scores of 64.9 ± 5.6 vs. 14.7 ± 11.0). The mean satisfaction score for the overall outcome was 91.3 ± 17.3. However, there was no significant difference in physical well-being (87.1 ± 10.4 vs. 85.2 ± 11.7). No complications such as severe capsular contracture or displacement occurred.
Conclusion
Distinguishing the need for a type I or II dual-plane pocket can lead to good outcomes and optimal soft-tissue coverage. The higher satisfaction and quality of life reported by our patients indicate that our new design is feasible and safe for most Asians with a medium build.
Level of Evidence II
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.