Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2/2019

01-04-2019 | Breast Augmentation | Original Article

The Comparison of Scars in Breast Implantation Surgery with Inframammary Fold Incision Versus Axillary Incision: A Prospective Cohort Study in Chinese Patients

Authors: Jingjing Sun, Dali Mu, Chunjun Liu, Minqiang Xin, Su Fu, Lin Chen, Wenyue Liu, Jie Luan

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

A prospective cohort study was developed to compare the surgical scars in the axilla and the inframammary fold at short-, medium- and long-term time periods after surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary breast augmentation with implants in our department were divided into two groups based on the incision location they chose and were followed up for scar assessment at 1 month, 6 months and 12 months post-surgery from June 2012 to March 2016. Each scar was evaluated by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and patient satisfaction score. The data were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Cochran–Armitage trend tests and Fisher’s exact probability tests based on the data type.

Results

One hundred and sixty-three patients were completely investigated three times. Ninety-four patients underwent breast augmentation surgeries with implants through axillary approaches and 69 patients through IMF approaches. At 1 month after surgery, the median total VSS score was 6 in the axillary incision group and 4 in the IMF group, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). Larger proportions of high scores in terms of vascularity and height were found in the axillary incision group (P < 0.05). At 6 months after surgery, the median total VSS score was 4 in the axillary incision group and 3 in the IMF group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). The axillary group still had a larger proportion of high scores in terms of vascularity and height than that of the IMF group (P < 0.05). At 12 months after surgery, the median total VSS score was 2 in both groups. The median patient satisfaction score was 9 in both groups. No significant differences were noted in the total VSS and patient satisfaction scores between the two groups. However, the axillary group had a larger proportion of high scores in terms of vascularity and low scores in terms of pliability.

Conclusions

The total VSS score for the axillary incision group was significantly higher than that for the IMF incision group one and 6 months after surgery, mainly on the subscales of vascularity and height. At 12 months after surgery, the total VSS scores were not different between the two groups, and patients with both kinds of incisions were highly satisfied with scar appearance. The research confirmed that the scars at two locations can achieve comparable appearance in the long term after surgery.

Level of Evidence III

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.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Visscher MO, Bailey JK, Hom DB (2014) Scar treatment variations by skin type. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am 22:453–462CrossRef Visscher MO, Bailey JK, Hom DB (2014) Scar treatment variations by skin type. Facial Plast Surg Clin N Am 22:453–462CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Chinese Society of Plastic Surgery (2013) Guidelines for breast augmentation with silicone implants. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi 29:1–4 Chinese Society of Plastic Surgery (2013) Guidelines for breast augmentation with silicone implants. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Wai Ke Za Zhi 29:1–4
4.
go back to reference Sun J, Liu C, Mu D, Wang K, Zhu S, He Y, Luan J (2015) Chinese women’s preferences and concerns regarding incision location for breast augmentation surgery: a survey of 216 patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 39:214–226CrossRef Sun J, Liu C, Mu D, Wang K, Zhu S, He Y, Luan J (2015) Chinese women’s preferences and concerns regarding incision location for breast augmentation surgery: a survey of 216 patients. Aesthet Plast Surg 39:214–226CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Truong PT, Abnousi F, Yong CM, Hayashi A, Runkel JA, Phillips T, Olivotto IA (2005) Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the vancouver scar scale, short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and patients’ perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1291–1299CrossRefPubMed Truong PT, Abnousi F, Yong CM, Hayashi A, Runkel JA, Phillips T, Olivotto IA (2005) Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the vancouver scar scale, short-form McGill pain questionnaire, and patients’ perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1291–1299CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Sartorio F, Stissi V, Franchignoni F (2009) How to assess postsurgical scars: a review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil 31:2055–2063CrossRefPubMed Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Sartorio F, Stissi V, Franchignoni F (2009) How to assess postsurgical scars: a review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil 31:2055–2063CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ (1990) Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 11:256–260CrossRefPubMed Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ (1990) Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 11:256–260CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Sun J, Mu 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. Aesthet Plast Surg 40:699–706CrossRef Sun J, Mu 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. Aesthet Plast Surg 40:699–706CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Liu H, Tang D, Cao H, Li K (2006) Reliability of vancouver scar scale. Chin J Rehabil Med 21(3):240–242 Liu H, Tang D, Cao H, Li K (2006) Reliability of vancouver scar scale. Chin J Rehabil Med 21(3):240–242
10.
go back to reference van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CMAM, van Zuijlen PPM (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522CrossRefPubMed van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CMAM, van Zuijlen PPM (2005) Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:514–522CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Celik M, Tuncer S, Eryilmaz E (2003) Running W incision in open rhinoplasty: better scar quality. Aesthet Plast Surg 27:388–389CrossRef Celik M, Tuncer S, Eryilmaz E (2003) Running W incision in open rhinoplasty: better scar quality. Aesthet Plast Surg 27:388–389CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: redefining the patient and surgeon experience. Mosby Elsevier, Amsterdam Tebbetts JB (2010) Augmentation mammaplasty: redefining the patient and surgeon experience. Mosby Elsevier, Amsterdam
13.
go back to reference Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2004) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(5):73e–81ePubMed Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML (2004) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(5):73e–81ePubMed
14.
go back to reference Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216 (discussion 2217–2208) CrossRefPubMed Hidalgo DA (2000) Breast augmentation: choosing the optimal incision, implant, and pocket plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:2202–2216 (discussion 2217–2208) CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Blount AL, Martin MD, Lineberry KD, Kettaneh N, Alfonso DR (2013) Capsular contracture rate in a low-risk population after primary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 33:516–521CrossRefPubMed Blount AL, Martin MD, Lineberry KD, Kettaneh N, Alfonso DR (2013) Capsular contracture rate in a low-risk population after primary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 33:516–521CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Reece EM, Ghavami A, Hoxworth RE, Alvarez SA, Hatef DA, Brown S, Rohrich RJ (2009) Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns. Aesthet Surg J 29:116–121CrossRefPubMed Reece EM, Ghavami A, Hoxworth RE, Alvarez SA, Hatef DA, Brown S, Rohrich RJ (2009) Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns. Aesthet Surg J 29:116–121CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Sevin A, Sevin K, Senen D, Deren O, Adanali G, Erdogan B (2006) Augmentation mammaplasty: retrospective analysis of 210 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 30:651–654CrossRef Sevin A, Sevin K, Senen D, Deren O, Adanali G, Erdogan B (2006) Augmentation mammaplasty: retrospective analysis of 210 cases. Aesthet Plast Surg 30:651–654CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Atiyeh BS (2007) Nonsurgical management of hypertrophic scars: evidence-based therapies, standard practices, and emerging methods. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:468–492 (discussion 493–464) CrossRef Atiyeh BS (2007) Nonsurgical management of hypertrophic scars: evidence-based therapies, standard practices, and emerging methods. Aesthet Plast Surg 31:468–492 (discussion 493–464) CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Comparison of Scars in Breast Implantation Surgery with Inframammary Fold Incision Versus Axillary Incision: A Prospective Cohort Study in Chinese Patients
Authors
Jingjing Sun
Dali Mu
Chunjun Liu
Minqiang Xin
Su Fu
Lin Chen
Wenyue Liu
Jie Luan
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/s00266-018-1299-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2/2019 Go to the issue