Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019 Dec;43(6):1469-1477. doi: 10.1007/s00266-019-01468-5. Epub 2019 Aug 9.

Muscle Splitting Augmentation Mammoplasty: A 13-Year Outcome Analysis of 1511 Primary Augmentation Mammoplasties.

Author information

1
Reshape ClinicReshape House, 2-4 High Street, West Malling, Kent, ME19 6QR, England, UK. mrumarkhan@aol.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Augmentation mammoplasty is a commonly performed procedure by plastic surgeons with a high satisfaction outcome. Muscle splitting augmentation mammoplasty was first described in 2007 and has been since used for primary and secondary augmentation mammoplasty as well as for primary and secondary augmentation mastopexy procedures.

METHODS:

A retrospective analysis of data for muscle splitting primary augmentation mammoplasties performed between October 2005 and October 2018 was carried out.

RESULTS:

A total of 1511 patients had their primary augmentation mammoplasty consecutively performed in muscle splitting pocket. Mean age of the patient was 29.4 ± 8.56 years (range 18-67). Of the 1502 patients with documented implant sizes, 1272 patients had same-size implants, mean 340 cc ± 58.3 (range 170-700), and 230 patients had two different-size implants for correction of asymmetry. Of these 230 patients, mean implant size on right and left was 341 cc ± 61.5 (range 200-655) and 345 cc ± 67.4 (range 200-605), respectively. Of the 1495 known texturing, only 3.1% patients had smooth implants. Periprosthetic infection was seen in 10 patients, 38 patients had wound-healing issues and 5 patients had late seroma. Capsular contracture (CC) was recorded at three monthly, six monthly, one yearly and two yearly or longer period. Secondary procedures were performed for various reasons in 93 (6.15%) of the patients. Leading causes for revision were implant exchange in 33 (2.2%), to go for bigger size in 25 (1.65%), CC in 18 (1.2%) and implant rupture in 9 (0.6%). There was no ALCL recorded in the series.

CONCLUSION:

Muscle splitting pocket for primary augmentation mammoplasty is a reliable, reproducible procedure with acceptable revision rate.

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.

KEYWORDS:

Animation deformity; Dynamic deformity; Muscle splitting augmentation; Primary augmentation mammoplasty; Submuscular augmentation

PMID:
31399821
DOI:
10.1007/s00266-019-01468-5

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center