Top

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Published in:

01-04-2019 | InnovativeTechniques

High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: Guidelines to Prevent Rippling and Implant Edge Visibility

Authors: Antonio Carlos Abramo, Marcio Scartozzoni, Thiago Walmsley Lucena, Romulo Grechi Sgarbi

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 2/2019

Abstract

Background

Rippling and implant edge visibility after breast augmentation depends on several factors. Among the most relevant are breast soft tissue thickness, particularly the retroareolar mammary parenchyma, and implant profile. They were correlates to prevent these occurrences.

Methods

Thirty patients underwent breast augmentation through subfascial dissection involving the pectoralis, serratus, external oblique, and rectus abdominis fascias. The thickness of the retroareolar mammary parenchyma distributed patients into two groups. Group I: patients with thickness equal to or greater than 4.0 cm received high-profile 85% fill round implants. Group II: patients with thickness up to 3.9 cm received extra-high-profile 100% fill round implants. MRI was performed preoperatively and 5 years after augmentation to evaluate breast tissue changes and implant contouring.

Results

Seventeen patients with high-profile implants and thirteen patients with extra-high-profile implants had noticeable improvement of the breasts without the occurrence of rippling or implant edge visibility. A natural appearance of the breast, increased mammary cone, balanced upper and lower pole contouring was maintained at 5 years postoperatively. MRI performed 5 years after breast augmentation validated patient clinical outcomes not evidencing implant deformities, or soft tissue thinning, parenchymal atrophy or chest wall deformities.

Conclusions

The adequate correlation between retroareolar mammary parenchyma thickness with high-profile 85% fill and extra-high-profile 100% fill textured round implants was of utmost importance in preventing rippling and implant edge visibility. The wide fascial support, width of the implant smaller than the breast diameter, and soft cohesive gel-filled implants were co-adjuvant factors in preventing rippling and implant edge visibility.

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.

Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:768–779CrossRefPubMed

Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D (2007) Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prosthesis: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prosthesis. J Plast Reconstr Surg 60:482–489CrossRef

Jewell ML, Bengtson BP, Smither K, Perry TA (2018) Physical properties of silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Codner MA, Cohen AT, Hester TR (2001) Complications in breast augmentation: prevention and correction. Clin Plast Surg 28:587–595PubMed

Pantelides NM, Srinivasan J (2018) Rippling following breast augmentation or reconstruction: aetiology, emerging treatment options and a novel classification of severity. Aesth Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1117-y CrossRef

Tebbetts JB (2002) Breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and dynamics: the TEPID approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 190:1396–1409CrossRef

Brown T, Brown S, Murphy T (2017) Breast durometer (mammometer): a novel device for measuring soft-tissue firmness and its application in cosmetic breast surgery. Aesth Plast Surg 41(2):265–274CrossRef

Sun J, Um D, Liu C, Ji K, Chen L, Liu W, Luan J (2016) Scar assessment after breast augmentation surgery with axillary incision versus inframammary fold incision: long-term follow-up in Chinese patients. Aesth Plast Surg 40(5):699–706CrossRef

Sampaio Goes JC, Landecker A (2003) Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years’ experience with the subfascial plane. Aesth Plast Surg 27:178–184CrossRef

10.

Slavin SA (2010) Discussion: high-and extra-high-projection breast implants potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2163–2164CrossRefPubMed

11.

Weum S, de Weerd L, Kristiansen B (2011) Form stability of the style 410 anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant in subglandular breast augmentation evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(1):409–413CrossRefPubMed

12.

Smiles J, McGrane A (2002) Correlação e Regressão. In: Smiles J, McCrane A (eds) Estatística Aplicada à Administração com Excel. Editora Atlas, São Paulo, pp 114–142

13.

Emerson JW, Green WA, Schoerke B, Crowley J, Cook D, Hofmann H, Wickham H (2013) The generalized pairs plot. J Comput Graph Statist 22(1):79–91CrossRef

14.

Nava MB, Rancati A, Angrigiani C, Catanuto G, Rocco N (2017) How to prevent complications in breast augmentation. Gland Surg 6(2):210–217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Friendly M, Denis D (2005) The early origins and development of the scatterplot. J Hist Behav Sci 41(2):103–130CrossRef

16.

Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A (2003) Sub- fascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(2):904–990CrossRefPubMed

17.

Duteille F, Perrot P, Bacheley M-H, Stewart S (2017) Eight-year safety data for round and anatomical silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 2(4):1–10

18.

Tebbets JB, Teitelbaum S (2009) High- and Extra-High Projection Breast Implants: potential Consequences for Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2150–2159CrossRef

19.

Largent JA, Reisman NR, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Jewell ML (2013) Clinical trial outcomes of high- and extra-high-profile breast implants. Aesth Surg J 33(4):529–539CrossRef

Title: High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: Guidelines to Prevent Rippling and Implant Edge Visibility
Authors: Antonio Carlos Abramo
Marcio Scartozzoni
Thiago Walmsley Lucena
Romulo Grechi Sgarbi
Publication date: 01-04-2019
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1264-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: Guidelines to Prevent Rippling and Implant Edge Visibility

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence IV

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

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 2/2019

Discussion: Clinical Impact of Highly Condensed Stromal Vascular Fraction Injection in Surgical Management of Depressed and Contracted Scars

Sensation-Sparing Correction of Inverted Nipples Using the ‘Drawbridge’ Flap Approach

Levator Pull-Out Suture Technique for Immediate Postoperative Correction of Eyelid Asymmetry After Ptosis Surgery in Asians

Supercooled Liquid Serum Physiologic Solution Instantly Crystallized on the Nurse Table Used for Cooling of Periorbital Region During Rhinoplasty

Managing Pathologic Scars by Injecting Auto-Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid: A Preliminary Prospective Clinical Study

The Efficacy of Different Volumes on Ultrasound-Guided Type-I Pectoral Nerve Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Subpectoral Breast Augmentation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study