BACKGROUND: In submuscular breast augmentation, the muscle is transected along its inferior and medial border to allow the implant to rest beneath the breast mound and supply adequate cleavage. This leads to significant pain in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to quantitatively document the effectiveness of tumescent infiltration and bupivicaine with epinephrine injection in controlling postoperative pain in primary submuscular breast augmentation and its effect on operating time, narcotic use, and complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 150 primary submuscular augmentation mammaplasties performed by 2 surgeons was conducted. Seventy-five consecutive augmentations performed by each physician during the same time period were studied. One surgeon used tumescent infiltration, using a syringe and a blunt infiltration cannula, placing 50 mL of standard tumescent solution in the planned pocket area of each breast before dissection. In addition, all cut muscle ends were injected with 0.25% bupivicaine with epinephrine (1:100,000, 40 mL per patient) under direct vision. The other surgeon omitted these steps. Patients evaluated pain subjectively using a 0 to 10 numeric pain intensity scale reported to the recovery room staff at specific times in the postanesthesia care unit. RESULTS: Postoperatively, the initial and discharge average pain rating was significantly different between the groups. The group that received tumescence and bupivicaine with epinephrine entered the recovery room with a significantly lower average pain score: 0.5 as compared with the pain score of the control group, which was on average 3.3. In addition, the highest average pain rating was 2.6 in the infiltrated group compared with 5.4 in the noninfiltrated group. Pain at discharge between the groups was also seen to be markedly lower with a subjective average rating of 2.0 in the infiltrated group compared with 4.0 in the control group. No difference was seen in operative time or complications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report to quantitatively show a pain reduction regimen that is effective in significantly decreasing postoperative pain and decreasing the use of narcotics in the recovery room. The authors conclude that its advantages are significant, and they advocate its use in all breast augmentations.
BACKGROUND: In submuscular breast augmentation, the muscle is transected along its inferior and medial border to allow the implant to rest beneath the breast mound and supply adequate cleavage. This leads to significant pain in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to quantitatively document the effectiveness of tumescent infiltration and bupivicaine with epinephrine injection in controlling postoperative pain in primary submuscular breast augmentation and its effect on operating time, narcotic use, and complications. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 150 primary submuscular augmentation mammaplasties performed by 2 surgeons was conducted. Seventy-five consecutive augmentations performed by each physician during the same time period were studied. One surgeon used tumescent infiltration, using a syringe and a blunt infiltration cannula, placing 50 mL of standard tumescent solution in the planned pocket area of each breast before dissection. In addition, all cut muscle ends were injected with 0.25% bupivicaine with epinephrine (1:100,000, 40 mL per patient) under direct vision. The other surgeon omitted these steps. Patients evaluated pain subjectively using a 0 to 10 numeric pain intensity scale reported to the recovery room staff at specific times in the postanesthesia care unit. RESULTS: Postoperatively, the initial and discharge average pain rating was significantly different between the groups. The group that received tumescence and bupivicaine with epinephrine entered the recovery room with a significantly lower average pain score: 0.5 as compared with the pain score of the control group, which was on average 3.3. In addition, the highest average pain rating was 2.6 in the infiltrated group compared with 5.4 in the noninfiltrated group. Pain at discharge between the groups was also seen to be markedly lower with a subjective average rating of 2.0 in the infiltrated group compared with 4.0 in the control group. No difference was seen in operative time or complications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report to quantitatively show a pain reduction regimen that is effective in significantly decreasing postoperative pain and decreasing the use of narcotics in the recovery room. The authors conclude that its advantages are significant, and they advocate its use in all breast augmentations.