BACKGROUND: Throughout the years the female breast has been manipulated through aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Since the 18th century there have been reports of techniques that have tried to increase the volume of the mammary gland. This article demonstrates a technique for increasing the volume of the mammary gland by dissection of the fascia of the pectoralis major muscle. This technique provides long-term results due to the optimized dynamics between the soft tissue and the implant. The subfascial technique is paramount to the subglandular method because primarily it offers better palpable firmness in the periareolar area, a significant decrease in the step effect produced by an excessive projection of the breast, a favorable gravitational pull of the breast, and a considerable reduction in the incidence of capsular contractures. The movement of the implant, postsurgical pain, and bleeding caused by the incision of the pectoralis muscle diminish with this technique. Because of the fascia's tendency to be preserved, this procedure has the advantage of being able to be applied where previous surgery has been performed; this concedes the subfascial technique a more versatile angle. METHODS: In the last 10 years 1000 patients were subjected to subfascial breast augmentation with soft-gel cohesive textured implants. An inframammary incision was used in 95% of the patients and the periareolar incision in 5%. RESULTS: The patient does not suffer from immediate postsurgical pain. Recovery time and the ability to start daily activities is briefer than after the submuscular procedure. A better projection is obtained without the need to use a bigger implant to get the same result because there is no pressure on top of the implant as in the submuscular technique. CONCLUSION: The subfascial procedure offers a high-grade result for the short and long term and has fewer disadvantages than the submuscular or subglandular technique. Likewise, there are fewer immediate postoperative symptoms and patients have a much better and less painful recovery. The morbidity in these patients is less than with the subglandular and submuscular methods.
BACKGROUND: Throughout the years the female breast has been manipulated through aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Since the 18th century there have been reports of techniques that have tried to increase the volume of the mammary gland. This article demonstrates a technique for increasing the volume of the mammary gland by dissection of the fascia of the pectoralis major muscle. This technique provides long-term results due to the optimized dynamics between the soft tissue and the implant. The subfascial technique is paramount to the subglandular method because primarily it offers better palpable firmness in the periareolar area, a significant decrease in the step effect produced by an excessive projection of the breast, a favorable gravitational pull of the breast, and a considerable reduction in the incidence of capsular contractures. The movement of the implant, postsurgical pain, and bleeding caused by the incision of the pectoralis muscle diminish with this technique. Because of the fascia's tendency to be preserved, this procedure has the advantage of being able to be applied where previous surgery has been performed; this concedes the subfascial technique a more versatile angle. METHODS: In the last 10 years 1000 patients were subjected to subfascial breast augmentation with soft-gel cohesive textured implants. An inframammary incision was used in 95% of the patients and the periareolar incision in 5%. RESULTS: The patient does not suffer from immediate postsurgical pain. Recovery time and the ability to start daily activities is briefer than after the submuscular procedure. A better projection is obtained without the need to use a bigger implant to get the same result because there is no pressure on top of the implant as in the submuscular technique. CONCLUSION: The subfascial procedure offers a high-grade result for the short and long term and has fewer disadvantages than the submuscular or subglandular technique. Likewise, there are fewer immediate postoperative symptoms and patients have a much better and less painful recovery. The morbidity in these patients is less than with the subglandular and submuscular methods.