Top

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Published in:

01-12-2021 | Breast Augmentation | Original Article

Comparison Of Endoscopic Transaxillary And Peri-areolar Approaches In Breast Augmentation With Smooth Implants

Authors: Ha H. Nguyen, Linh T. To

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Introduction

The most common surgical approaches for breast augmentation in Asia have traditionally been peri-areolar and transaxillary. In recent years, transaxillary approach has become increasingly popular with the use of endoscopic methods, which result in safer and better outcomes. In the literature, there are no comparison studies of endoscopic transaxillary and peri-areolar approaches.

Methods

This prospective study compared the outcomes of 275 women undergoing primary breast augmentation (endoscopic transaxillary n=205, peri-areolar n=70). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon using smooth round silicone implants and dual-plane pockets from April 2013 to March 2016. Every patient was monitored for a minimum of 4 years for minor and major complications.

Results

Types and percentage of patients experiencing minor complications among transaxillary and peri-areolar patients were localized fluid collection in the wound (1% transaxillary, 7.1% peri-areolar), hypertrophic scarring or keloids (1% transaxillary, 8.6% peri-areolar), and areolar and nipple deformity (0% transaxillary, 8.6% peri-areolar). Major complications were postoperative bleeding (0% transaxillary, 2.9% peri-areolar) and capsular contracture, Baker Group III or IV (1% transaxillary, 5.7% peri-areolar).

Conclusions

Endoscopic transaxillary breast augmentation had better outcomes, with lower rates of complications than the peri-areolar approach. Reviewing the literature, our study is the first direct comparison of peri-areolar and endoscopic transaxillary incisions using smooth implants. With the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotexture implants, endoscopic transaxillary approach using smooth implants is the safer technique and very good alternative choice for Asian women who do not want any scarring on their breasts.

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

Ballard TNS, Hill S, Nghiem BT et al (2019) Current trends in breast augmentation: analysis of 2011–2015 maintenance of certification (moc) tracer data. Aesthetic Surg J 39(6):615–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy176CrossRef

Zelken J, Cheng MH (2015) Asian breast augmentation: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(11):e555. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000000528CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Heidekrueger PI, Sinno S, Hidalgo DA, Colombo M, Broer PN (2018) Current trends in breast augmentation: an international analysis. Aesthetic Surg J 38(2):133–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx104CrossRef

Sun J, Liu C, Mu D et al (2015) Chinese women’s preferences and concerns regarding incision location for breast augmentation surgery: a survey of 216 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 39(2):214–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0457-0CrossRefPubMed

Lee DW, Kim SJ, Kim H (2019) Endoscopic transaxillary versus inframammary approaches for breast augmentation using shaped implants: a matched case-control study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 43(3):563–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01324-6CrossRefPubMed

Liu C, Chen Y, Xu Y, Qu Q, Wang Z, Fan Y (2020) Transaxillary endoscopic approach to capsular contracture following previous breast augmentation: operative technique and clinical outcome. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(1):28–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01525-zCrossRefPubMed

Cheng MH, Huang JJ (2009) Augmentation mammaplasty in asian women. Semin Plast Surg 23(1):48–54. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1111101CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Alpert BS, Lalonde DH (2008) MOC-PS(SM) CME article: breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(4 Suppl):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000305933.31540.5dCrossRefPubMed

Li S, Chen L, Liu W, Mu D, Luan J (2018) Capsular contracture rate after breast augmentation with periareolar versus other two (inframammary and transaxillary) incisions: a meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 42(1):32–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0965-1CrossRefPubMed

10.

Spear SL, Murphy DK (2014) Natrelle round silicone breast implants: Core Study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(6):1354–1361. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD, Hill LM, Spear SL (2012) Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthetic Surg J 32(4):456–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820x12444267CrossRef

12.

Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH (2013) Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J plast, reconstruct aesthet surg: JPRAS. 66(9):1165–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.04.046CrossRef

13.

Hidalgo DA, Spector JA (2014) Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(4):567e–583e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000033CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sim H-B (2014) Transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation. Arch Plast Surg 41(5):458–465. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.5.458CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Luan J, Mu D, Mu L (2009) Transaxillary dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty: experience with 98 breasts. J plastic, reconstruct aesthet surg: JPRAS 62(11):1459–1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2008.05.044CrossRef

16.

Momeni A, Padron NT, Bannasch H, Borges J, Björn SG (2006) Endoscopic transaxillary subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty: a safe and predictable procedure. J plast, reconstruct aesthet surg: JPRAS 59(10):1076–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2006.01.031CrossRef

17.

Tebbetts JB (2006) Axillary endoscopic breast augmentation: processes derived from a 28-year experience to optimize outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):53s–80s. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000247314.92351.99CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hung C-C. 2020. Endoscopic transaxillary capsulectomy with immediate reimplantation performed as a single-operator outpatient procedure. J Plast, Reconstruct Aesthet Surg. 73(12):2225-2231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2020.05.054

19.

Han HH, Kim KK, Lee KH et al (2015) Transareolar-perinipple (areolar omega) zigzag incision for augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(3):517e–525e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000967CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wiener TC (2008) Relationship of incision choice to capsular contracture. Aesthetic Plast Surg 32(2):303–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-007-9061-2CrossRefPubMed

21.

Araco A, Araco F, Sorge R, Gravante G (2011) Sensitivity of the nipple-areola complex and areolar pain following aesthetic breast augmentation in a retrospective series of 1200 patients: periareolar versus submammary incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 128(4):984–989. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182268d73CrossRefPubMed

22.

Chong SJ, Deva AK (2015) Understanding the etiology and prevention of capsular contracture: translating science into practice. Clin Plast Surg 42(4):427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.007CrossRefPubMed

23.

Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML. 2006. Breast augmentation. Plast reconstruct surg; 118(7 Suppl):188S-196S; discussion 197S-198S. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000135945.02642.8b

24.

Price CI, Eaves FF 3rd, Nahai F, Jones G, Bostwick J 3rd (1994) Endoscopic transaxillary subpectoral breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 94(5):612–619. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199410000-00007CrossRefPubMed

25.

Giordano PA, Rouif M, Laurent B, Mateu J (2007) Endoscopic transaxillary breast augmentation: clinical evaluation of a series of 306 patients over a 9-year period. Aesthet surg j. Jan-Feb 27(1):47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2006.12.012CrossRef

26.

Li Z, Mu D, Xu B (2020) Drainage Collection After Endoscopic-Assisted Transaxillary Dual-Plane Augmentation Mammaplasty Using Cold or Electrosurgical Separation of Interpectoral Space. 28(1):19–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/2292550319880913CrossRefPubMed

27.

Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J, Jensen JA. 2006. A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast reconstruct surg. 117(3):757-67; discussion 768-72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000201457.00772.1d

28.

Bachour Y, Bargon CA, de Blok CJM, Ket JCF, Ritt M, Niessen FB (2018) Risk factors for developing capsular contracture in women after breast implant surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J plast, reconstruct aesthet surg: JPRAS. 71(9):e29–e48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.022CrossRef

29.

Stutman RL, Codner M, Mahoney A, Amei A (2012) Comparison of breast augmentation incisions and common complications. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(5):1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9918-xCrossRef

30.

Lee EJ, Jung SG, Cho BC, Kim YB (2004) Submuscular augmentation mammaplasty using a perinipple incision. Ann Plast Surg 52(3):297–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000106887.49177.66CrossRefPubMed

31.

Pelle-Ceravolo M, Del Vescovo A, Bertozzi E, Molinari P (2004) A technique to decrease breast shape deformity during muscle contraction in submuscular augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet plast surg. Sep-Oct 28(5):288–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-003-3023-0CrossRef

32.

Liu X, Zhou L, Pan F, Gao Y, Yuan X, Fan D (2015) Comparison of the postoperative incidence rate of capsular contracture among different breast implants: a cumulative meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0116071. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Comparison Of Endoscopic Transaxillary And Peri-areolar Approaches In Breast Augmentation With Smooth Implants
Authors: Ha H. Nguyen
Linh T. To
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Breast Augmentation
Silicone
Breast Augmentation
Breast Augmentation
Keloid
Incision
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02448-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison Of Endoscopic Transaxillary And Peri-areolar Approaches In Breast Augmentation With Smooth Implants

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence IV

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence IV

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Patient Satisfaction After Non-surgical Rhinoplasty Using Hyaluronic Acid: A Literature Review

Dermatologic Complications Following Cosmetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Touch-ups, Rejuvenation, Re-dos and Revisions: Remote Communication and Cosmetic Surgery on the Rise

Invited response on: “Does Overfilling Smooth Inflatable Saline-Filled Breast Implants Decrease the Deflation Rate? Experience With 4761 Augmentation Mammaplasty Patients”

Invited Discussion on: a Medical Tattooing Technique for Enhancing the Three-Dimensional Appearance of the Nipple-Areola Complex After Flap-Based Nipple Reconstruction by Yoshihiro Sowa, Ph.D., M.D. Takuya Kodama, M.D. Tomoko Hori, M.D. Toshiaki Numajiri, M.D., Ph.

Unsatisfactory Upper Blepharoplasty Revision Technique: Reconstruction of the Upper Orbital Septum and its Fusion Point