Skip to main content
Log in

Breast augmentation: A review of subglandular and submuscular implantation

  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A study of 156 patients who underwent augmentation mammoplasty at the Medical College of Georgia from June 1980 to July 1985 is presented. Complete records on 89 patients with 196 implants were obtained. A retrospective analysis with respect to capsular contracture was undertaken. Possible influential variables including age of patient, type of prosthesis, operative blood loss, use of local steroids, and site of insertion (i.e., submuscular versus subglandular) were considered. The site of implant insertion was the only statistically significant factor affecting capsular contracture. The incidence of capsular contracture was 9.4% with the submuscular approach and 58.0% with subglandular contracture. The followup time for the submuscular group was 17.4 months (range of 6–36 months) with the mean time of capsule contracture occurring 4.5 months after insertion. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss or elapsed operating time between the submuscular and the subglandular placements of the prosthesis. This study confirms the submuscular technique of augmentation mammoplasty as the most reliable method of reducing the high incidence of capsular contracture.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baker JL Jr: Classification of spherical contractures. Presented at the Aesthetic Breast Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1975

  2. Burkhardt BR: 1985 supplement to augmentation mammoplasty and capsular contracture. An annotated review and guide to the literature. Tucson, Arizona, privately published, 1985

  3. Carrico TJ, Cohen LK: Capsular contracture and steroid-related complications after augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg63:708, 1979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dempsey WC, Latham WD: Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammoplasty. Preliminary Report. Plast Reconstr Surg42:515, 1968

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eyssen JE, Von Werssowetz AT, Middleton GD: Reconstruction of the breast using polyurethanecoated prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg73:415, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gayou R, Rudolph R: Capsular contraction around silicone mammary prostheses. Ann Plast Surg2:62, 1979

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Herman S: The Meme Implant. Plast Reconstr Surg73:411, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mahler D, Hauben DJ: Retromammary versus retropectoral breast augmentation—A comparative study. Ann Plast Surg8:370, 1982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McGrath MH, Burkhardt BR: The safety and efficacy of breast implants for augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg74:550, 1984

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McKinney P, Tresley G: Long-term comparison of patients with gel and saline mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg72:27, 1983

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Oneal RM, Argenta LC: Late side effects related to inflatable breast prostheses containing soluble steroids. Plast Reconstr Surg69:641, 1982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perrin ER: The use of soluble steroids within inflatable breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg57:163, 1976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Regnault P: Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg59:72, 1977

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Scully SJ: Augmentation mammoplasty without contracture. Ann Plast Surg6:262, 1981

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shapiro MA, Rahall DO: Concepts and technique in using the new Meme prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg77:499, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vinnik CA: Spherical contracture of fibrous capsules around breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg58:555, 1976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vistnes LM, Ksander GA, Koesk J: Study of encapsulation of silicone rubber implants in animals. A foreign-body reaction. Plast Reconstr Surg62:580, 1978

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams JE: Invited Comment—“Review of closed capsulotomy complications,” by RP Gruber and HW Jones. Ann Plast Surg6:275, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  19. Williams JE: Experience with a large series of silastic breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg49:253, 1972

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vazquez, B., Given, K.S. & Courtney Houston, G. Breast augmentation: A review of subglandular and submuscular implantation. Aesth. Plast. Surg. 11, 101–105 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575494

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575494

Key words

Navigation