Joe Gryskiewicz1. 1. University of Minnesota Academic Health Center, School of Dentistry Cleft Palate/Craniofacial Clinics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. drjoe@tcplasticsurgery.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dual-plane breast augmentation (DPBA) can be an effective technique for treating patients with ptotic breasts who fall somewhere in between the traditional requirements for breast augmentation versus a more extensive augmentation-mastopexy. OBJECTIVES: The author outlines indications for DPBA, describes the technique, and presents outcomes data from patients receiving gel or saline implants in an effort to clarify the advantages of DPBA compared with breast augmentation with or without mastopexy. METHODS: This 8-year retrospective comparative study reviewed the results of saline implants placed with a DPBA technique in a single surgeon's practice during the final 4 years of the FDA moratorium (phase 1) compared with both gel and saline implants placed during the 4 years after the moratorium was lifted (phase 2). Patients were consecutive. The entire patient cohort (n = 1999 for primary BA; 3998 implants) was assessed for outcomes. RESULTS: Of the entire cohort, 24.2% were followed for over 1 year; 23.5% of the 256 DPBA patients were followed for over 1 year. Mean (SD) age was 33.6 (8.7) years. The difference in revision rates between BA versus DPBA was 4.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-8.5). CONCLUSION: The DPBA approach is most likely suited for patients with minimal ptosis who fall into a "gray area" between normal anatomy (treated with a traditional BA) and frank ptosis (which would require mastopexy). Knowledge of this approach will allow surgeons to more effectively treat patients who present with unique "in-between" anatomy not addressed by ordinary BA and avoid more extensive mastopexy scars. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
BACKGROUND: Dual-plane breast augmentation (DPBA) can be an effective technique for treating patients with ptotic breasts who fall somewhere in between the traditional requirements for breast augmentation versus a more extensive augmentation-mastopexy. OBJECTIVES: The author outlines indications for DPBA, describes the technique, and presents outcomes data from patients receiving gel or saline implants in an effort to clarify the advantages of DPBA compared with breast augmentation with or without mastopexy. METHODS: This 8-year retrospective comparative study reviewed the results of saline implants placed with a DPBA technique in a single surgeon's practice during the final 4 years of the FDA moratorium (phase 1) compared with both gel and saline implants placed during the 4 years after the moratorium was lifted (phase 2). Patients were consecutive. The entire patient cohort (n = 1999 for primary BA; 3998 implants) was assessed for outcomes. RESULTS: Of the entire cohort, 24.2% were followed for over 1 year; 23.5% of the 256 DPBApatients were followed for over 1 year. Mean (SD) age was 33.6 (8.7) years. The difference in revision rates between BA versus DPBA was 4.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-8.5). CONCLUSION: The DPBA approach is most likely suited for patients with minimal ptosis who fall into a "gray area" between normal anatomy (treated with a traditional BA) and frank ptosis (which would require mastopexy). Knowledge of this approach will allow surgeons to more effectively treat patients who present with unique "in-between" anatomy not addressed by ordinary BA and avoid more extensive mastopexy scars. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.