Quantitative Analysis of Nipple to Inframammary Fold Distance Variation in Tuberous Breast Augmentation: Is there a Progressive Lower Pole Expansion?

Tytuł:: Quantitative Analysis of Nipple to Inframammary Fold Distance Variation in Tuberous Breast Augmentation: Is there a Progressive Lower Pole Expansion?
Autorzy:: Avvedimento S; Plastic Surgery Dept, Villa de Fiori, Naples, Italy.
Montemurro P; Akademikliniken, Stockholm, Sweden.
Cigna E; Dipartimento di Ricerca Traslazionale e delle Nuove Tecnologie in Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Guastafierro A; Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, Plastic Surgery Unit, Università degli Studi della Campania 'Luigi Vanvitelli', Naples, Italy.
Cagli B; Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome', Rome, Italy.
Santorelli A; Plastic surgeon Private practice, Via Morghen 88, 80129, Napoli, Italy. .
Źródło:: Aesthetic plastic surgery [Aesthetic Plast Surg] 2021 Oct; Vol. 45 (5), pp. 2017-2024. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jun 07.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: New York, Springer-Verlag.
MeSH Terms:: Breast Implants*
Mammaplasty*
Humans ; Nipples/surgery ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies
References:: Mandrekas AD, Zambacos GJ, Anastasopoulos A, Hapsas D, Lambrinaki N, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L (2003) Aesthetic reconstruction of the tuberous breast deformity. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000076502.37081.28. (PMID: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000076502.37081.2814663252)
Klinger M, Caviggioli F, Klinger F, Villani F, Arra E, Di Tommaso L (2011) Tuberous breast: morphological study and overview of a borderline entity. Can J Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1177/229255031101900210. (PMID: 10.1177/229255031101900210226545303328117)
Kolker AR, Collins MS (2015) Tuberous breast deformity: classification and treatment strategy for improving consistency in aesthetic correction. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000823. (PMID: 10.1097/PRS.000000000000082325909297)
Puckett CL, Concannon MJ (1990) Augmenting the narrow-based breast: the unfurling technique to prevent the double-bubble deformity. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01578320. (PMID: 10.1007/BF015783202330852)
Ribeiro L, Accorsi A, Buss A, Marçal Pessôa MC (2002) Short scar correction of the tuberous breast. Clin Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1298(02)00007-X. (PMID: 10.1016/S0094-1298(02)00007-X12365642)
Mandrekas AD, Zambacos GJ (2010) Aesthetic reconstruction of the tuberous breast deformity: a 10-year experience. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X10383397. (PMID: 10.1177/1090820X10383397)
Atiyeh BS, Hashim HA, El-Douaihy Y, Kayle DI (1998) Perinipple round-block technique for correction of tuberous/tubular breast deformity. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002669900204. (PMID: 10.1007/s0026699002049688790)
Panchapakesan V, Brown MH (2009) Management of tuberous breast deformity with anatomic cohesive silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-008-9234-7. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-008-9234-7)
Brown MH, Somogyi RB (2015) Surgical strategies in the correction of the tuberous breast. Clin Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.004. (PMID: 10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.00426408442)
Montemurro P, Cheema M, Hedén P, Ferri M, Li AQ, Avvedimento S (2017) Role of macrotextured shaped extra full projection cohesive gel implants in primary aesthetic breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw199. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjw19929091998)
Randquist C, Gribbe Ö (2010) Highly cohesive textured form stable gel implants: principles and technique. In: Aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Grolleau JL, Lanfrey E, Lavigne B, Chavoin JP, Costagliola M (1999) Breast base anomalies: treatment strategy for tuberous breasts, minor deformities, and asymmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199912000-00014. (PMID: 10.1097/00006534-199912000-0001411149766)
Ji K, Luan J, Liu C et al (2014) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093010. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093010255461784278836)
Lin F, Hong W, Zeng L, Kong X, Feng W, Luo S (2020) A Prospective Study of breast morphological changes and the correlative factors after periareolar dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with anatomic implant. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01665-7. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-020-01665-732410201)
Roxo ACW, Nahas FX, Bazi F, De Castro CC, Aboudib JH, Marques RG (2015) Evaluation of the effects of silicone implants on the breast parenchyma. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjv120. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjv120)
Steen K, Isaac KV, Murphy BD, Beber B, Brown M (2018) Three-dimensional imaging and breast measurements: how predictable are we? Aesthetic Surg J 38(6):616–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx232. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjx232)
Benito-Ruiz J, de Cabo F, Manzano M, Salvador L (2019) Effects of silicone implants on the mammary gland: ultrasonographic And 3d study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1253-4. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-018-1253-430311034)
Montemurro P, Avvedimento S, Hedén P, Quattrini LA (2016) A four-layer wound closure technique with barbed sutures for stable reset of the inframammary fold in breast augmentation. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw011. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjw011)
Buganza Tepole A, Gosain AK, Kuhl E (2012) Stretching skin: the physiological limit and beyond. Int J Non Linear Mech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2011.07.006. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2011.07.006)
Govrin-Yehudain O, Ascherman JA (2019) Breast implant weight versus volume: reappraising breast implant compatibility with tissue characteristics. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005438. (PMID: 10.1097/PRS.000000000000543830707153)
Innocenti A, Innocenti M, Mori F, Melita D, Ciancio F, Cordova A (2018) Tuberous breast: past, present, and future: personal classification, treatment, and surgical outcomes. Ann Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000001200. (PMID: 10.1097/SAP.000000000000120030059384)
Galych SP, Dabizha OY, Kostenko AA, Gomolyako IV, Samko KA, Borovyk DV (2016) Surgical treatment of tubular breast type II. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001024. (PMID: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001024278264615096516)
Zholtikov V, Korableva N, Lebedeva J (2019) Tuberous breast deformity correction: 12-year experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1261-4. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-018-1261-430411146)
Vegas MR, Martin Del Yerro JL (2013) Stiffness, compliance, resilience, and creep deformation: understanding implant-soft tissue dynamics in the augmented breast: fundamentals based on materials science. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-013-0197-y. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-013-0197-y24002490)
Govrin-Yehudain J, Dvir H, Preise D, Govrin-Yehudain O, Govreen-Segal D (2015) Lightweight breast implants: a novel solution for breast augmentation and reconstruction mammaplasty. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjv080. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjv080)
Tebbetts JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High—and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f44564. (PMID: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f4456420697317)
Sieber DA, Stark RY, Chase S, Schafer M, Adams WP (2017) Clinical evaluation of shaped gel breast implant rotation using high-resolution ultrasound. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw179. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjw179)
Tebbetts JB (2002) A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200204010-00030. (PMID: 10.1097/00006534-200204010-0003012447083)
Montemurro P, Agko M, Li AQ, Avvedimento S, Hedén P (2017) Implementation of an integrated biodimensional method of breast augmentation with anatomic, highly cohesive silicone gel implants: short-term results with the first 620 consecutive cases. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx024. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjx024)
Mallucci P, Branford OA (2016) Design for natural breast augmentation: the ICE principle. plast reconstr surg 1:45–68.
Atiyeh B, Dibo S, Nader M, Papazian N (2014) Preoperative assessment tool for the planning of inframammary incision and implant profile in breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0381-8. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-014-0381-825060928)
Del Yerro JLM, Vegas MR, Fernandez V et al (2013) Selecting the implant height in breast augmentation with anatomical prosthesis: the “number Y.” Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828bd65b. (PMID: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828bd65b23714801)
Hedén P, Montemurro P, Adams WP, Germann G, Scheflan M, Maxwell GP (2015) Anatomical and round breast implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001474. (PMID: 10.1097/PRS.000000000000147426218376)
Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ et al (2009) Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-009-9360-x. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-009-9360-x194370712693778)
Montemurro P, Cheema M, Hedén P, Agko M, Quattrini Li A, Avvedimento S (2018) Do not fear an implant’s shape: a single surgeon’s experience of over 1200 round and shaped textured implants in primary breast augmentation. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx145. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjx145)
Santorelli A, Rossano F, Cagli B, Avvedimento S, Ghanem A, Marlino S (2019) Standardized practice reduces complications in breast augmentation: results with the first 290 consecutive cases versus non-standardized comparators. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1291-y. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-018-1291-y31832736)
Bresnick SD (2016) Management of a common breast augmentation complication: treatment of the double-bubble deformity with fat grafting. Ann Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000553. (PMID: 10.1097/SAP.000000000000055326101976)
Bengtson BP (2012) The highly cohesive, style 410 form-stable gel implant for primary breast augmentation. In: Surgery of the breast: principles and art, 3rd edn. Lippincott.
Montemurro P (2016) Response to “can we really control the inframammary fold (IMF) in breast augmentation?” Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw111. (PMID: 10.1093/asj/sjw111)
Schusterman MA (2004) Lowering the inframammary fold. Aesthetic Surg J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2004.07.009. (PMID: 10.1016/j.asj.2004.07.009)
Matousek SA, Corlett RJ, Ashton MW (2015) Understanding the fascial supporting network of the breast: key ligamentous structures in breast augmentation and a proposed system of nomenclature. Plast Surg Complet Clin Masters PRS Breast Augment. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000436798.20047.dc. (PMID: 10.1097/01.prs.0000436798.20047.dc)
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0965-1. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-017-0965-130552471)
American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2017) Plastic surgery statistics report. Available at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics-report-2017.pdf . Accessed 10 Jan 2021.
Montemurro P, Adams WP, Mallucci P et al (2020) Why do we need anatomical implants? The science and rationale for maintaining their availability and use in breast surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01595-z. (PMID: 10.1007/s00266-019-01595-z32358668)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Anatomical implants; Lower pole deformity; Plastic surgery; Tuberous breast
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20210608 Date Completed: 20211011 Latest Revision: 20211011
Update Code:: 20240104
DOI:: 10.1007/s00266-021-02363-8
PMID:: 34100102
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Introduction: In patients with short nipple to inframammary fold (N-IMF) distance, as in tuberous breast, the cohesivity and gel distribution of shaped implants work as a controlled tissue expander, progressively adapting the tissues to the implant's shape. This phenomenon translates into a gradual increase of the N-IMF distance over time, but the true extent to which this occurs has not been quantified to date. This study aims to quantify the postoperative variation of the N-IMF distance in tuberous breast treated with shaped cohesive silicone breast implants.
Methods: We did a retrospective review of a prospective maintained database of all consecutive patients with bilateral Groulleau I and II tuberous breasts who underwent primary breast augmentation between April 2017 and May 2018 at our institution. To quantify the lower mammary pole's morphological changes, we evaluated the N-IMF distance under maximal stretch as an endpoint. We recorded this value at time 0 (preoperative), immediate post-op (equivalent to the distance planned preoperatively) and at month 1, month 6 and 1-year post-op. Then we calculated the average N-IMF distance variation of our sample of patients with a 99% interval of confidence for each breast obtained. Comparisons were performed using the Sign test and the Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: The average implant weight was 353g (range 290-450; SD ±46.147). Of the 54 breasts analyzed, the immediate post-op N-IMF distance was on average 2.43 cm longer than the preop IMF with a 99% confidence interval between 2.01 and 2.86 and SD of ±1.22. The mean difference between the preop N-IMF distance and after 1, 6 and 12 months was respectively 2.78 cm (SD,1.56) (99% CI, 2.24-3.34), 3.08 cm (SD, 1.57) (99% CI, 2.53-3.64), and 3.36 (1.55) (99% CI, 2.82-3.91) Comparing immediate postoperative nipple to inframammary fold distance (N-IMF) to the 1, 6 and 12 months N-IMF values, an average of 4.23% (CI 1.3-7.16), 7.74% (CI 4.25-11.23) and 10.84% (CI 7.21-14.49) of skin length, was gained respectively. According to implants' weight, subgroup analysis showed that implants > 400 g were associated with significantly higher N-IMF distance increase (p <0.05) compared to implants < 400 g.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a significant progressive postoperative increase in N-IMF distance should be expected in all cases of tuberous breast augmentation with anatomical implants over a 1 year period. This aspect may have an important implication on the IMF incision and the new fold position preoperative planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV.
(© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Comment in: Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021 Oct;45(5):2025-2026. (PMID: 34131788)

Informacja