Top

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Breast Augmentation | Original Article

A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

Authors: Fuchuan Lin, Weijin Hong, Li Zeng, Xiangxue Kong, Wenjie Feng, Shengkang Luo

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

Background

Dual-plane breast augmentation is a popular cosmetic procedure. However, objective evaluations on the effects of dual-plane breast augmentation on breast morphology are lacking. This study evaluated the breast morphological changes and correlative factors after dual-plane anatomic implant augmentation with a periareolar incision via a Vectra 3-dimensional (3D) scanning technique.

Methods

The dynamic changes in linear distance, breast projection, nipple position, and breast volume and surface over time (preoperatively; 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery) were analyzed in 21 patients with the Vectra 3D scanning technique. In another group of 65 patients, the influence of the implant parameters and tissue characteristics of the patients on breast morphological changes were evaluated.

Results

The breast measurements changed significantly up to 6 months postoperatively and remained stable thereafter. The inframammary fold dropped by 0.8 cm at 1 month postoperatively and by 0.5 cm in the following 11 months. The preoperative implant volume and a lower pole skin elasticity lead to an increase in the nipple-to-inframammary fold distance. Compared with the expected values, the final volume was 10.9% smaller, and the projection was 25% smaller. Both the reduced volume and projection were correlated with the implant parameters and preoperative values. The nipple level was slightly elevated by approximately 0.8 cm.

Conclusions

This study provides objective information regarding the breast morphological changes and correlative factors after dual-plane breast augmentation. These information may help to further understand the operation effects of dual-plane breast augmentation and to guide medical practice.

Level of Evidence IV

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.

Tebbetts JB (2001) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1255–1272CrossRef

Tebbetts JB (2006) Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:81S–98S (Discussion 99S–102S)CrossRef

Bengtson BP (2009) Complications, reoperations, and revisions in breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 36:139–156CrossRef

Grewal NS, Fisher J (2013) Why do patients seek revisionary breast surgery? Aesthet Surg J 33:237–244CrossRef

Esme DL, Bucksch A, Beekman WH (2009) Three-dimensional laser imaging as a valuable tool for specifying changes in breast shape after augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:191–195CrossRef

Tepper OM, Small KH, Unger JG, Feldman DL, Kumar N, Choi M, Karp NS (2009) 3D analysis of breast augmentation defines operative changes and their relationship to implant dimensions. Ann Plast Surg 62:570–575CrossRef

Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Sichtermann M, Schuster T, Papadopulos NA, Machens HG, Biemer E, Kovacs L (2011) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast contour and volume changes following subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty over 6 months. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64:1152–1160CrossRef

Kovacs L, Eder M, Zimmermann A, Muller D, Schuster T, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E, Kloppel M, Machens HG (2012) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:879–887CrossRef

Ji K, Luan J, Liu C, Mu D, Mu L, Xin M, Sun J, Yin S, Chen L (2014) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS One 9:e93010CrossRef

10.

Benito-Ruiz J, de Cabo F, Manzano M, Salvador L (2019) Effects of silicone implants on the mammary gland: ultrasonographic and 3D study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 43:354–365CrossRef

11.

Swanson E (2013) Prospective photographic measurement study of 196 cases of breast augmentation, mastopexy, augmentation/mastopexy, and breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:802e–819eCrossRef

12.

de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68:2129–2135CrossRef

13.

Becker H (2012) The role of three-dimensional scanning technique in evaluation of breast asymmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:893e–894e (Author reply 894e–896e)CrossRef

14.

Luan J, Mu D, Mu L (2009) Transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty: experience with 98 breasts. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:1459–1463CrossRef

15.

Fanous N, Salem I, Tawile C, Bassas A (2004) Absence of capsular contracture in 319 consecutive augmentation mammaplasties: Dependent drains as a possible factor. Can J Plast Surg 12:193–197CrossRef

16.

Unexpected Status Code. Canfield Scientific. 2019. https://www.canfieldsci.com/error.php

17.

Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:1396–1409 (Discussion 1410–1395)CrossRef

18.

Liu C, Luan J, Ji K, Sun J (2012) Measuring volumetric change after augmentation mammaplasty using a three-dimensional scanning technique: an innovative method. Aesthet Plast Surg 36:1134–1139CrossRef

19.

Kovacs L, Eder M, Hollweck R, Zimmermann A, Settles M, Schneider A, Udosic K, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K, Papadopulos NA, Biemer E (2006) New aspects of breast volume measurement using 3-dimensional surface imaging. Ann Plast Surg 57:602–610CrossRef

20.

Forte AJ, Barbosa MP, Persing JA, Alonso N, Berlin N, Broer N, Narayan D, Kwei S (2015) Cadaveric study of breast measurements during augmentation with implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:699e–710eCrossRef

21.

Creasman CN, Mordaunt D, Liolios T, Chiu C, Gabriel A, Maxwell GP (2011) Four-dimensional breast imaging, part I: introduction of a technology-driven, evidence-based approach to breast augmentation planning. Aesthet Surg J 31:914–924CrossRef

22.

Creasman CN, Mordaunt D, Liolios T, Chiu C, Gabriel A, Maxwell GP (2011) Four-dimensional breast imaging, part II: clinical implementation and validation of a computer imaging system for breast augmentation planning. Aesthet Surg J 31:925–938CrossRef

23.

Andjelkov K, Sijan-Miskovic N, Colic M, Colic M, Lalic A, Llull R (2018) Gland suspension improves breast augmentation outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 6:e2032CrossRef

24.

Hall-Findlay EJ (2010) The three breast dimensions: analysis and effecting change. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1632–1642CrossRef

25.

Iacob S, Gigliofiorito P, Pendolino AL, Persichetti P (2014) Understanding the fascial supporting network of the breast: key ligamentous structures in breast augmentation and a proposed system of nomenclature. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:325e–326eCrossRef

26.

Atiyeh BS, Al-Amm CA, El-Musa KA (2002) The transverse intra-areolar infra-nipple incision for augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 26:151–155CrossRef

27.

Kolker AR, Austen WG Jr, Slavin SA (2010) Endoscopic-assisted transaxillary breast augmentation: minimizing complications and maximizing results with improvements in patient selection and technique. Ann Plast Surg 64:667–673CrossRef

28.

Atiyeh BS, Dibo SA, Nader M, Papazian NJ (2014) Preoperative assessment tool for the planning of inframammary incision and implant profile in breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 38:878–886CrossRef

29.

Swanson E (2016) Can we really control the inframammary fold (IMF) in breast augmentation? Aesthet Surg J 36:NP313–NP314CrossRef

30.

Adams WP (2007) The high five process: tissue-based planning for breast augmentation. Plast Surg Nurs 27:197–201CrossRef

31.

Foissac R, Camuzard O, Georgiou C, Foty P, Balaguer T, Chignon-Sicard B, Casanova D (2015) Contribution of breast skin elastometry measurement in breast augmentation surgery: a pilot study evaluating the correlation between skin elasticity and nipple-to-inframammary fold distance. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68:1309–1310CrossRef

32.

Hall-Findlay E, Evens G (2012) Aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast. Saunders, Philadelphia

33.

Kim YJ, Kim YW, Cheon YW (2014) Prevention of implant malposition in inframammary augmentation mammaplasty. Arch Plast Surg 41:407–413CrossRef

34.

Handel N (2006) Secondary mastopexy in the augmented patient: a recipe for disaster. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:152S–163S (Discussion 164S–165S, 166S–167S)CrossRef

35.

Vegas MR, Martin del Yerro JL (2013) Stiffness, compliance, resilience, and creep deformation: understanding implant-soft tissue dynamics in the augmented breast: fundamentals based on materials science. Aesthet Plast Surg 37:922–930CrossRef

36.

Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:2150–2159CrossRef

37.

Roxo AC, Nahas FX, Bazi F, de Castro CC, Aboudib JH, Marques RG (2015) Evaluation of the effects of silicone implants on the breast parenchyma. Aesthet Surg J 35:929–935CrossRef

38.

Gryskiewicz J (2013) Dual-plane breast augmentation for minimal ptosis pseudoptosis (the "in-between" patient). Aesthet Surg J 33:43–65CrossRef

39.

Bronz G (2004) A comparison of naturally shaped and round implants. Aesthet Surg J 22:238–246CrossRef

40.

Rubi CG, Lozano JA, Perez-Espadero A, Leache ME (2017) Comparing round and anatomically shaped implants in augmentation mammaplasty: the experts' ability to differentiate the type of implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:60–64CrossRef

Title: A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant
Authors: Fuchuan Lin
Weijin Hong
Li Zeng
Xiangxue Kong
Wenjie Feng
Shengkang Luo
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Breast Augmentation
Breast Augmentation
Breast Augmentation
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01665-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence IV

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence IV

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Breast Augmentation Surgery: How Do We Do It? Results of a Joint Survey from European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Correction of Upper-Eyelid Depression Through Retro-Orbicularis Oculi Fat (ROOF) Augmentation Using Periumbilical Adipose Graft

Invited Discussion on: A Prospective Study of Breast Morphological Changes and the Correlative Factors After Periareolar Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty with Anatomic Implant

Clinical Experience with Treatment of Aquafilling Filler-Associated Complications: A Retrospective Study of 146 Cases

“Radix Pillow” Constructs with Fascial Extension for Radix Augmentation in Primary Rhinoplasty

Invited Discussion on: Simultaneous Augmentation Mammoplasty and Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy for Enhanced Cosmesis and Efficacy