Skip to main content

Shaping the Breast: Augmentation Mastopexy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Shaping the Breast

Abstract

Although there has been significant controversy over the years as to the appropriateness of performing a breast augmentation simultaneously with a mastopexy, significant data have emerged demonstrating the effectiveness of this procedure in the appropriately selected patients. There is no doubt that when performed well, the ability to truly “shape” the breast and produce aesthetically pleasing outcomes has led to the increasing popularity of this procedure in the experienced breast surgeon’s hands.

Many patients need more than simply volume to improve their results. The shape and size of the breasts may experience significant changes over time secondary to pregnancy, weight fluctuations, and aging. A successful breast procedure in these patients may include not only adding much needed volume and shape stability offered with a breast implant but also tightening of the ptotic skin envelope and repositioning of the low nipple–areolar complex. The success of the augmentation mastopexy is multifactorial, but implementing the optimal surgical technique based on patient factors can significantly contribute to the long-term success of the procedure. Patient education and perioperative decision-making are critical to achieving success in these procedures. However, the ultimate decisions and approach must be executed skillfully to insure a successful outcome. The details, decisions, and experience-based pearls involved in this operation can provide the guidance to perform this operation with expert precision.

In this chapter, the focus is on reviewing in details of the surgical techniques utilized in shaping the breast through augmentation mastopexy. As the focus of this chapter is on the ability to “shape” the breast into the desired outcome, we will initially focus on the preoperative evaluation with the patient, including consideration of the patient’s anatomical findings, as well as the patient’s desired final aesthetic outcome. Based on this initial assessment with determination of the desired “shape,” the options for mastopexy approach, implant selection, and the preferred pocket for implant placement will be discussed. This chapter will then in greater detail review the preoperative markings, techniques employed for the creation of different breast pockets, details on placement of a variety of different implants, tailor-tacking technique, de-bulking of the lower pole, decision-making in the final shaping of the breast, and postoperative management. The impact of each of these steps on preservation of blood supply and the ultimate safety of the procedure is a focus of this chapter. The ability to “shape” the breast and perform a one-stage augmentation mastopexy procedure safely, reproducibly, and with results equal to or better than that achieved with a two-stage procedure leading to high patient and surgeon satisfaction is the goal of this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hoffman S. Some thoughts on augmentation/mastopexy and medical malpractice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1892–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nahai F, Fisher J, Maxwell GP, Mills DC II. Augmentation mastopexy: to stage or not. Aesthet Surg J. 2007;27:297–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Spears SL. Augmentation mastopexy: “surgeon beware”. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:905–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stevens WG, Macias LH, Spring M, Stoker DA, Chacón CO, et al. One-stage augmentation mastopexy: a review of 1192 simultaneous augmentation and mastopexy procedures in 615 consecutive cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34:723–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Calobrace MB, Herdt DR, Cothron KJ. Simultaneous augmentation/mastopexy: a retrospective 5-year review of 332 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:145–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tessone A, Millet E, Weissman O, Stavrou D, Nardini G, Liran A, et al. Evading a surgical pitfall: Mastopexy-augmentation made simple. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2011;35:1073–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee MR, Unger JG, Adams WP. The tissue-based triad: a process approach to augmentation mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:215–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Persoff MM. Mastopexy with expansion-augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2003;23:34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Binelli L. A new periareolar mammoplasty: the “round block” technique. Aesthet Plast Surg. 1990;14:93–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lejour M. Vertical mammoplasty for breast reduction and mastopexy. In: Spear SL, editor. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998. p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hall-Findlay EJ. Pedicles in vertical breast reduction and mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg. 2002;29:379–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wise RJ. Treatment of breast hypertrophy. Clin Plast Surg. 1976;3:289–300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Marchac D, Olarte G. Reduction mammoplasty and correction of ptosis with a short inframammary scar. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;69:45–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tebbetts JB. Form stability of the style 410 implant: definitions, conjectures, and the rest of the story. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:825–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Calobrace MB, Capizzi PJ. The biology and evolution of cohesive gel and shaped silicone implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(1S):6S–11S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 1976;3:193–203.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hall-Findlay EJ. Applied anatomy: key concepts for modern breast surgery. In: Hall-Findlay EJ, editor. Aesthetic breast surgery: concepts and techniques. St. Louis: Quality Medical Publishing, Inc.; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kalaaji A, Dreyer S, Brinkmann J, Maric I, Nordahl C, Olafsen K. Quality of life after breast enlargement with implants versis augmentation mastopexy: a comparative study. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(12):1304–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S. High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(6):2150–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Namnoun JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH. Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013;66:1165–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Maric I, Nordahl C, Olafsen K. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 10-year Sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4S):20S–8S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hall-Findlay EJ. Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:56–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Spear SL, Rottman SJ, Glicksman C, Brown M, Al-Attar A. Late seromas after breast implants: theory and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(2):423–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Loch-Wilkinson AL, Beath KJ, Knight RJW, Wessels WLF, Magnusson M, Papadopoulos T, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand: high surface-area textured implants are associated with increased risk. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(4):645–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(2):423–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Regnault P, Daniel RK, Tirkanits B. The minus-plus mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg. 1988;15:595–600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Spring MA, Macias LH, Nadeau M, Stevens WG. Secondary augmentation-mastopexy: indications, preferred practices, and the treatment of complications. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(7):1018–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Flugstad NA, Pozner JN, Baxter RA, Creasman C, Egrari S, Martin S, et al. Does implant insertion with a funnel decrease capsular contracture? A preliminary report. Aesthet Surg J. 2016;36:550–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mladick RA. “No-touch” submuscular saline breast augmentation technique. Aesthet Plast Surg. 1993;17:183–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Editorial Comments

This important chapter addresses the hard-to-master treatment of hypoplastic breast in the setting of ptosis. Augmentation mastopexy can be one of the most rewarding but yet frustrating and litigious operation we perform. What makes this operation so challenging are the opposing forces of expansion and tightening that are in play with sometimes less than ideal soft tissue envelope. To strike the right note, the surgeon must have a good understanding of patient’s anatomy and tissue quality, biodimensional planning, and mastopexy design.

As the pioneers in this field, Drs. Calobrace and Mays share their expertise with this operation in a detailed and methodical fashion. They review the anatomical features and how they decide between one vs. two stage surgery. It is very important for the novice surgeons to realize that staging is perfectly an acceptable option and sometimes lead to a safer and more superior outcome. The order by which the mastopexy or augmentation is done first will depend on the patient’s wish and the degree of ptosis.

The authors highlight some of the differences in biodimensional planning between augmentation and augmentation mastopexy. Importantly, they mention use of lower profile for this operation to minimize waterfall deformity in patients with larger glandular tissue.

The authors do an excellent job of differentiating between the blood supply in a wise pattern breast reduction with inferior pedicle and an inverted-T mastopexy with superior and superomedial pedicle. There are described techniques for preoperative markings for circumvertical and inverted-T mastopexies but they primarily serve an academic purpose and have a less of clinical significance and as the authors point out, the ultimate determination of the design and the amount of skin excision is done with tailor-tacking technique and after the implant is in place.

The authors emphasize the importance of removing some glandular tissue from the lower pole of breast in order to minimize risk of pseudoptosis. It is, however, important to repair the superficial fascia system in this area to help shape the breast just as we repair the SMAS layer in a SMASectomy facelift.

One note of dissent: The authors describe the different ways of accessing the pocket and they primarily use transparenchymal approach such as via the vertical incision for implant placement. Although this may provide some benefit in ease of placing the implant, it exposes the implants to the dreaded breast parenchyma and potentially increases the risk of biofilm formation. In my practice, I use the IMF incision for implant placement regardless of the design for mastopexy. Before ensuing on the mastopexy part, I close the pocket as in primary augmentation. In cases of circumvertical and inverted-T mastopexy I, like the authors, leave a cuff of tissue just above the IMF incision as a security layer to minimize potential implant exposure in case of dehiscence at the T-junction.

Congratulations again to Drs. Calobrace and Mays for their excellent chapter on augmentation mastopexy.

Kiya Movassaghi

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Bradley Calobrace .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Calobrace, M.B., Mays, C. (2021). Shaping the Breast: Augmentation Mastopexy. In: Movassaghi, K. (eds) Shaping the Breast. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59777-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59777-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59776-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59777-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics