Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 3/2022

24-01-2022 | Silicone | Original Article

Reoperative Augmentation Mammoplasty: An Algorithm to Optimize Soft-Tissue Support, Pocket Control, and Smooth Implant Stability with Composite Reverse Inferior Muscle Sling (CRIMS) and its Technical Variations

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Reoperative augmentation mammoplasty (RAM) is a challenging procedure, with the highest rates of complications and revision. Complications include implant malposition, lateral displacement, bottoming out, and rotation. These deformities can be addressed with various procedures, but the pocket control and stability of the new smooth implant surface may present limitations.

Objectives

This study revisits a previously described predictable approach in primary breast augmentation and defines a surgical treatment algorithm for RAM technique selection.

Methods

Between 2017 and 2021, 72 patients (144 breasts) underwent RAM with composite reverse inferior muscle sling (CRIMS) technique and its technical variations (types I–IV). CRIMS technique involves placing a silicone gel implant into the submuscular (SM) pocket with an inferior sling of the pectoralis major muscle based on the dimensions of the implant, in combination with support points/dermal bridge sutures to stabilize the implant and glandular tissue at the lower breast pole (LBP). Reasons for surgery were ptosis (92%), implant and malposition (59.6%). Patients were followed for at least 6 months in 5 cases (6.9%), at least 12 months in 50 cases (69.4%), for at least 36 months in 10 cases (13.8%), and more than 36 months in 7 cases (9.7%) (mean 34 months; range 6–48 months). Patients were evaluated in terms of resolution of symptoms, satisfaction, and complications. Three-dimensional imaging (3DI) obtained from the Divina scanner system was used and followed up for 1 year to evaluate breast position, lower pole stretch (LPS), and intermammary distance (IMD).

Results

Eleven cases of minor complications were observed in 9 patients (12.5%): hypertrophic scarring in 4 (5.5%), wound dehiscence in 4 (5.5%), Baker II/III capsular contracture in 1 (1.3%). SmoothSilk surface silicone implants were used in all cases, with an average volume decrease of 120 cc. Sixty-eight patients (94.4%) were either very satisfied/satisfied with their aesthetic result. Breast images were performed in a group of 65 patients (90.2%), and in 7 breasts (10.7%), localized oil cysts were observed. The value for LPS was 7.87% (p <0.0001) between 10 days and 1 year, with the majority occurring early in the first 3 months, indicating that the LBP/implant remains steady during the last months of follow-up. No cases of fat necrosis/seroma were observed. There were no signs of intra/extracapsular ruptures, capsular contracture. There were 2 cases (3%) of minimal implant displacement and no cases of rotation.

Conclusions

CRIMS and its variations can be performed successfully in RAM. An algorithmic approach can facilitate the pre- and intraoperative decision-making process and provide the new pocket control and implant stability with acceptable complication rates. Further accurate evaluation is recommended to understand the benefits or disadvantages of CRIMS compared to other RAM techniques.

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 Authorswww.​springer.​com/​00266.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Lee MR, Unger JG, Adams WP (2014) The tissue-based triad: A process approach to augmentation mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:215–225PubMedCrossRef
4.
Baeke JL (2002) Breast deformity caused by anatomical or teardrop implant rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 109:2555–2564PubMedCrossRef
5.
Khan UD (2011) Back-to-front flipping of implants following augmentation mammoplasty and the role of physical characteristics in a round cohesive gel silicone breast implant: retrospective analysis of 3458 breast implants by a single surgeon. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(1):125–128CrossRef
6.
Montemurro P, Papas A, Hedén P (2017) Is rotation a concern with anatomical breast implants? A statistical analysis of factors predisposing to rotation. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(6):1367–1378PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
Chopra K, Gowda AU, Kwon E, Eagan M, Grant Stevens W (2016) Techniques to repair implant malposition after breast augmentation: a review. Aesthet Surg J 36(6):660–671PubMedCrossRef
9.
Maxwell GP, Scheflan M, Spear S, Nava MB, Hedén P (2014) Benefits and limitations of macrotextured breast implants and consensus recommendations for optimizing their effectiveness. Aesthet Surg J 34(6):876–881PubMedCrossRef
10.
Mallucci P, Bistoni G (2021) The use of anatomic implants in aesthetic breast surgery. Clin Plast Surg 48(1):141–156PubMedCrossRef
11.
Calobrace MB, Mays C (2021) Shaping the breast: augmentation mastopexy. In: Movassaghi K (ed) Shaping the breast a comprehensive approach in augmentation, revision, and reconstruction, 1st edn. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 35–65CrossRef
12.
Hall-Findlay EJ (2011) Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(1):56–66PubMedCrossRef
13.
McGuire P, Reisman NR, Murphy DK (2017) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture, malposition, and late seroma in subjects receiving natrelle 410 Form-stable silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(1):1–9PubMedCrossRef
14.
Chung B, Hall-Findlay EJ (2017) Late seromas in Natrelle 410 form-Stable silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(3):500e–501ePubMedCrossRef
15.
Park BY, Lee DH, Lim SY, Pyon JK, Mun GH, Oh KS, Bang SI (2014) Is late seroma a phenomenon related to textured implants? A report of rare complications and a literature review. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(1):139–145CrossRef
16.
Hallab NJ, Samelko L, Hammond D (2021) Particulate debris released from breast implant surfaces are highly dependent on implant type. Aesthet Surg J 10:sjab051
17.
Clemens MW, Jacobsen ED, Horwitz SM (2019) 2019 NCCN consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Aesthet Surg J 39(Supp_1):S3–S13PubMedCrossRef
18.
Munhoz AM, Santanelli di Pompeo F, De Mezerville R (2017) Nanotechnology, nanosurfaces and silicone gel breast implants: current aspects. Case Rep Plast Surg Hand Surg 4(1):99–113CrossRef
19.
Munhoz AM, Clemens MW, Nahabedian MY (2019) Breast implant surfaces and their impact on current practices: Where we are now and where are we going? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 7(10):2466CrossRef
20.
Munhoz AM (2021) Relevance of breast silicone elastomer surface roughness and area to the inflammatory process and immune system activation: Is it time to reexamine this issue? Aesthet Surg J 41(8):1129–1131CrossRef
21.
Khavanin N, Jordan SW, Rambachan A, Kim JY (2014) A systematic review of single-stage augmentation-mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(5):922–931PubMedCrossRef
22.
Sarosiek K, Maxwell GP, Unger JG (2018) Getting the most out of augmentation-mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(5):742e–759ePubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Spear SL, Boehmler JH, Clemens MW (2006) Augmentation/mastopexy: a 3-year review of a single surgeon’s practice. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:136S-147SPubMedCrossRef
25.
Brown MH, Somogyi RB, Aggarwal S (2016) Secondary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 138(1):119e-e135PubMedCrossRef
26.
Handel N (2006) Secondary mastopexy in the augmented patient: a recipe for disaster. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):152S-163SPubMedCrossRef
27.
Sforza M, Hammond DC, Botti G, Hedén P, Chacón Quirós M, Munhoz AM, Kinney BM, Corduff N (2019) Expert consensus on the use of a new bioengineered, cell-friendly, smooth surface breast implant. Aesthet Surg J 39(3):S95–S102PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Munhoz AM, Marques Filho A, Ferrari O (2020) Single-stage augmentation mastopexy with composite reverse inferior muscle sling technique for autologous reinforcement of the inferior pole: technical refinements and outcomes. Aesthet Surg J 40(6):356–373
29.
Munhoz AM (2020) Reoperative transaxillary approach algorithm: extending the surgical alternatives for secondary breast augmentation in the era of scarless surgery. Aesth Surg J 40(11):1179–1192CrossRef
30.
Munhoz AM, Maximiliano J, Marques Neto A, Duarte DW, Oliveira ACP, Portinho CP, Zanin E, Collares MVM (2021) Zones for fat grafting in hybrid breast augmentation revisited: Standardization for intraoperative planning of fat grafting based on breast cleavage units. Plast Reconstr Surg. (in press)
31.
Maximiliano J, Munhoz AM, Pedron M, Pinto AC et al (2020) Hybrid breast augmentation: a reliable formula for preoperative assessment of fat graft volume based on implant volume and projection. Aesth Surg J 40(8):438–452CrossRef
32.
Munhoz AM, Neto AA, Maximiliano J (2021) Subfascial ergonomic axillary hybrid (SEAH) breast augmentation: a surgical approach combining the advantages of incision, pocket, silicone gel, and fat grafting in primary and revision breast augmentation Surgery. Aesth Surg J 41(6):364–384CrossRef
33.
Adams WP Jr, Moses AC (2017) Use of poly-4-hydroxybutyrate mesh to optimize soft-tissue support in mastopexy: a single-site study. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(1):67–75PubMedCrossRef
34.
Spear SL, Little JWR (1998) Breast capsulorrhaphy. Plast Reconstr Surg 81(2):274–279CrossRef
35.
Chasan PE, Francis CS (2008) Capsulorrhaphy for revisionary breast surgery. Aesthet Surg J 28(1):63–69PubMedCrossRef
36.
Chasan PE (2005) Breast capsulorrhaphy revisited: a simple technique for complex problems. Plast Reconstr Surg 115(1):296–303PubMed
37.
Harris R, Raphael P, Harris SW (2014) Thermal capsulorrhaphy: a modified technique for breast pocket revision. Aesthet Surg J 34(7):1041–1049PubMedCrossRef
38.
Calobrace MB, Mays C, Wilson R, Wermeling R (2020) Popcorn capsulorrhaphy in revision aesthetic breast surgery. Aesthet Surg J 40(1):63–74PubMedCrossRef
39.
Randquist C (2017) Popcorn capsule reduction. (personal communication)
40.
Voice SD, Carlsen LN (2001) Using a capsular flap to correct breast implant malposition. Aesthet Surg J 21(5):441–444PubMedCrossRef
41.
Yoo G, Lee PK (2010) Capsular flaps for the management of malpositioned implants after augmentation mammoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 34(1):111–115CrossRef
42.
Wessels L, Murphy S, Merten S (2014) The capsular hammock flap for correction of breast implant ptosis. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(2):354–357CrossRef
43.
Persichetti P, Segreto F, Pendolino AL, Del Buono R, Marangi GF (2014) Breast implant capsule flaps and grafts: a review of the literature. Aesthet Plast Surg 38(3):540–548CrossRef
44.
Tebbetts JB (2001) Alternatives and trade-offs in breast augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 28(3):485–500PubMedCrossRef
45.
Spear SL, Dayan JH, Bogue D et al (2009) The “neosubpectoral” pocket for the correction of symmastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 124(3):695–703PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zingaretti N, De Lorenzi F, Dell’Antonia F, De Biasio F, Riccio M, Parodi PC (2016) The use of “precapsular space” in secondary breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 40(5):716–723CrossRef
47.
Castello MF, Lazzeri D, Silvestri A, Agostini T, Pascone C et al (2011) Maximizing the use of precapsular space and the choice of implant type in breast augmentation mammaplasty revisions: review of 49 consecutive procedures and patient satisfaction assessment. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(5):828–838CrossRef
48.
Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2014) Non-cross-linked porcine acellular dermal matrix in revision breast surgery: long-term outcomes and safety with neopectoral pockets. Aesthet Surg J 34(4):551–559PubMedCrossRef
49.
Spear SL, Seruya M, Clemens MW, Teitelbaum S, Nahabedian MY (2011) Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1047–1058PubMedCrossRef
50.
Baxter RA (2003) Intracapsular allogenic dermal grafts for breast implant-related problems. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(6):1692–1696PubMedCrossRef
51.
Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2013) Efficacy of acellular dermal matrices in revisionary aesthetic breast surgery: a 6-year experience. Aesthet Surg J 33(3):389–399PubMedCrossRef
52.
Pozner JN, White JB, Newman MI (2013) Use of porcine acellular dermal matrix in revisionary cosmetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 33(5):681–690PubMedCrossRef
53.
54.
Daniel MJ (2005) Inclusion of the breast prosthesis in double space. Rev Soc Bras Cir Plást 20(2):82–87
55.
Graf RM, Mansur AE, Tenius FP, Ono MC, Romano GG, Cruz GA (2008) Mastopexy after massive weight loss: extended chest wall-based flap associated with a loop of pectoralis muscle. Aesthet Plast Surg 32:371–374CrossRef
56.
Neto LG, Reis de Araújo LR, Baggio M, Broer PN, Graf R (2013) The Ruth Graf technique in secondary mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:125e–127ePubMedCrossRef
57.
Daniel MJ, Junior IM, Matioski AR (2015) Mammoplasty with bipedicled flap from the pectoral muscle: 30 years of experience. Rev Bras Cir Plást 30(3):455–460
58.
Graf R, Tolazzi ARD, Balbinot P, Pazio A, Valente PM, Freitas RS (2016) Influence of the pectoralis major muscle sling in chest wall-based flap suspension after vertical mammaplasty: ten-year follow-up. Aesthet Surg J 36:1113–1121PubMedCrossRef
59.
Vita RD, Zoccali G, Buccheri EM (2017) The Balcony technique of breast augmentation and inverted-T mastopexy with an inferior dermoglandular Flap. Aesthet Surg J 37:1114–1123PubMedCrossRef
60.
Valente DS (2018) (2018) Reverse-muscle sling reduces complications in revisional mastopexy-augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(5):1202–1212CrossRef
61.
Vassaro VO, Ali AH, Capponi DM (2010) Pectoral muscle flap based on inferior-internal perforators. Inverted dual plane. Cir Plast Iberolatinoam 36(2):107–114
62.
63.
Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R et al (2003) Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:904–911PubMedCrossRef
64.
Sampaio Goes JC, Munhoz AM, Gemperli R (2015) The subfascial approach to primary and secondary breast augmentation with autologous fat grafting and form-stable implants. Clin Plast Surg 42(4):551–564PubMedCrossRef
65.
Munhoz AM, Fells K, Arruda EG et al (2006) Subfascial transaxillary breast augmentation without endoscopic assistance: technical aspects and outcome. Aesth Plast Surg. 30:503–512CrossRef
66.
Munhoz AM, Gemperli R, Sampaio Goes JC (2015) Transaxillary subfascial augmentation mammaplasty with anatomic form-stable silicone implants. Clin Plast Surg 42(4):565–584PubMedCrossRef
67.
Benito-Ruiz J, Raigosa M, Manzano M, Salvador L (2009) Subfascial breast augmentation: thickness of the pectoral fascia. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:31e–32ePubMedCrossRef
68.
Tijerina VN, Saenz RA, Garcia-Guerrero J (2010) Experience of 1000 cases on subfascial breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 34:16–22CrossRef
69.
Gaskin KM, Peoples GE, McGhee DE (2020) The attachments of the breast to the chest wall: a dissection study. Plast Reconstr Surg 146(1):11e–22ePubMedCrossRef
70.
Villa MT, White LE, Alam M, Yoo SS, Walton RL (2008) Barbed sutures: a review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:102e–108ePubMedCrossRef
71.
Tebbetts JB (2004) Does fascia provide additional meaningful coverage over a breast implant? Plast Reconstr Surg 113:777–785PubMedCrossRef
72.
Junior IM, Graf RM, Ascenço ASK, Itikawa W, Balbinot P, Munhoz AM et al (2019) Is there a breast augmentation outcome difference between subfascial and subglandular implant placement? A prospective randomized double-blinded study. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(6):1429–1436CrossRef
73.
Montemurro P, Avvedimento S, Hedén P, Quattrini Li A (2016) A four-layer wound closure technique with barbed sutures for stable reset of the inframammary fold in breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 36(8):966–971PubMedCrossRef
74.
Hoch J, Stahlenbrecher A (2006) Bottoming out in augmentation mammaplasty correction and prevention. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 38:233–239PubMedCrossRef
75.
Parsa FD (1990) Breast capsulopexy for capsular ptosis after augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 85(5):809–812PubMedCrossRef
76.
Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A, Seno A, Mileto D, Paganelli A, Sulaiman H, Payne M, Maurovich-Horvat L (2018) Preliminary 3-year evaluation of experience with silksurface and velvetsurface motiva silicone breast implants: a single-center experience with 5813 consecutive breast augmentation cases. Aesthet Surg J 38(2):S62–S73PubMedCrossRef
77.
Danino AM, Basmacioglu P, Saito S et al (2001) Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscopic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 108:2047–2052PubMedCrossRef
78.
Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP (2012) Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 32:709–717PubMedCrossRef
79.
James GA, Boegli L, Hancock J, Bowersock L, Parker A, Kinney BM (2019) Bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on textured breast implant shell materials. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(2):490–497CrossRef
80.
Doloff JC, Veish O, de Mezerville R, Sforza M et al (2021) The surface topography of silicone breast implants mediates the foreign body response in mice, rabbits and humans. Nat Biomed Eng (in press)
81.
Munhoz AM, Chala L, Melo G, Neto AA, Tucunduva T, Gemperli R (2020) Usefulness of radio-frequency identification device (RFID) in diagnosing displacement and rotation of breast implants after augmentation mammoplasty with smoothsilk implants. Plast Recon Surg Global Open 7(11):e2497CrossRef
82.
Munhoz AM, Neto AAM, Chala L, Mello G, Tucunduva T (2021) Clinical and MRI evaluation of silicone gel implants with RFID-M traceability system: a prospective controlled cohort study related to safety and image quality in MRI follow-up. Aesth Plast Surg (in press)
Metadata
Title
Reoperative Augmentation Mammoplasty: An Algorithm to Optimize Soft-Tissue Support, Pocket Control, and Smooth Implant Stability with Composite Reverse Inferior Muscle Sling (CRIMS) and its Technical Variations
Publication date
24-01-2022
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02726-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 3/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Closed Piezo Preservation Rhinoplasty

Original Article

Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) in Italian

Review

Comparison of Flap Fixation to Its Bed and Conventional Wound Closure with Drainage in Preventing Seroma Formation Following Mastectomy for Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Original Article

Aesthetic Outcome of Gynecomastia Management with Conventional Liposuction and Cross-Chest Liposuction: A Prospective Comparative Study

Editor’s Invited Discussion

Invited Discussion on: Re-evaluating the Effect of Preoperative Tranexamic Acid on Blood Loss and Field Quality During Rhinoplasty: A Randomized double-blinded controlled Trial

Original Article

The Effect of Smoking on Septoplasty and Septorhinoplasty Outcomes