Joe Gryskiewicz1, Robert LeDuc2. 1. Dr Gryskiewicz is an Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota Academic Health Center, School of Dentistry Cleft Palate/Craniofacial Clinics, Minneapolis, Minnesota drjoe@tcplasticsurgery.com. 2. Dr LeDuc is a Research Associate, Department of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty (TAM) is an option for patients who wish to avoid a visible breast incision from breast augmentation (BA). OBJECTIVES: The authors compared TAM outcome data for gel and saline implants and evaluated patient satisfaction using the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure (BQ). METHODS: In this 10-year retrospective, comparative, and cross-sectional study, the authors reviewed results of saline implants placed with TAM in a surgeon's practice during the final 5 years of the moratorium of the US Food and Drug Administration (phase 1) and compared them with results for gel and saline implants placed with TAM during the 5 years after the moratorium (phase 2). Outcomes were assessed for the entire BA study population (n = 2430 for primary BA; 4860 implants); 670 patients completed and returned the BQ, from which postoperative satisfaction was evaluated. RESULTS: BQ responses demonstrated a high rate of patient satisfaction, with outcomes comparable to those of other studies. The differences between the median BQ-assessed breast satisfaction and outcome satisfaction scores in the axillary and nonaxillary surgical groups were statistically significant, favoring axillary over nonaxillary. The difference in mean satisfaction scores was marginally significant between the 2 types of implants, favoring silicone gel. The incidence of surgical revision was 7.5% for the entire BA study population and 6.8% for the patients who underwent TAM. CONCLUSIONS: TAM produces long-term patient satisfaction as measured by the BQ. Complication rates are similar to those of other studies. In the present study, patients who underwent TAM and thus had hidden incisions were more satisfied than patients whose incisions were visible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
BACKGROUND: Transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty (TAM) is an option for patients who wish to avoid a visible breast incision from breast augmentation (BA). OBJECTIVES: The authors compared TAM outcome data for gel and saline implants and evaluated patient satisfaction using the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure (BQ). METHODS: In this 10-year retrospective, comparative, and cross-sectional study, the authors reviewed results of saline implants placed with TAM in a surgeon's practice during the final 5 years of the moratorium of the US Food and Drug Administration (phase 1) and compared them with results for gel and saline implants placed with TAM during the 5 years after the moratorium (phase 2). Outcomes were assessed for the entire BA study population (n = 2430 for primary BA; 4860 implants); 670 patients completed and returned the BQ, from which postoperative satisfaction was evaluated. RESULTS: BQ responses demonstrated a high rate of patient satisfaction, with outcomes comparable to those of other studies. The differences between the median BQ-assessed breast satisfaction and outcome satisfaction scores in the axillary and nonaxillary surgical groups were statistically significant, favoring axillary over nonaxillary. The difference in mean satisfaction scores was marginally significant between the 2 types of implants, favoring silicone gel. The incidence of surgical revision was 7.5% for the entire BA study population and 6.8% for the patients who underwent TAM. CONCLUSIONS:TAM produces long-term patient satisfaction as measured by the BQ. Complication rates are similar to those of other studies. In the present study, patients who underwent TAM and thus had hidden incisions were more satisfied than patients whose incisions were visible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Wess A Cohen; Lily R Mundy; Tiffany N S Ballard; Anne Klassen; Stefan J Cano; John Browne; Andrea L Pusic Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.740