Haiqian Xu1, Wenjie Li2, Yida Chen1, Yangdong Zhu1, Lijun Hao3. 1. Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 143 Yiman Street, Nangang District, Harbin, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Breast Oncological Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital (Cancer Hospital) of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, People's Republic of China. 3. Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, 143 Yiman Street, Nangang District, Harbin, People's Republic of China. haolijundoctor@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The design methods for dual-plane implant pockets for axillary endoscopic breast augmentation vary among different countries. We applied a modified approach for an Asian population. METHODS: Seventy patients with micromastia underwent our modified approach between 2011 and 2014. Breasts were divided into two types according to the soft-tissue pinch thickness of the lower pole: type I (thickness >2 cm; Group I) and type II (thickness ≤2 cm; Group II). The levels at which the pectoralis major (PM) was severed were 6-6.5 cm and 3-4 cm below the nipple for type I and II pockets, respectively. Then, dissection of the retromammary space was continued from the severance level downward to the new inframammary fold for type I pockets, whereas no dissection was made for type II pockets. All patients completed the pre- and post-operative BREAST-Q augmentation modules. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 10 months (range, 6-12 months), patients reported higher satisfaction with breasts after surgery than before surgery (satisfaction scores of 64.9 ± 5.6 vs. 14.7 ± 11.0). The mean satisfaction score for the overall outcome was 91.3 ± 17.3. However, there was no significant difference in physical well-being (87.1 ± 10.4 vs. 85.2 ± 11.7). No complications such as severe capsular contracture or displacement occurred. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing the need for a type I or II dual-plane pocket can lead to good outcomes and optimal soft-tissue coverage. The higher satisfaction and quality of life reported by our patients indicate that our new design is feasible and safe for most Asians with a medium build. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: The design methods for dual-plane implant pockets for axillary endoscopic breast augmentation vary among different countries. We applied a modified approach for an Asian population. METHODS: Seventy patients with micromastia underwent our modified approach between 2011 and 2014. Breasts were divided into two types according to the soft-tissue pinch thickness of the lower pole: type I (thickness >2 cm; Group I) and type II (thickness ≤2 cm; Group II). The levels at which the pectoralis major (PM) was severed were 6-6.5 cm and 3-4 cm below the nipple for type I and II pockets, respectively. Then, dissection of the retromammary space was continued from the severance level downward to the new inframammary fold for type I pockets, whereas no dissection was made for type II pockets. All patients completed the pre- and post-operative BREAST-Q augmentation modules. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 10 months (range, 6-12 months), patients reported higher satisfaction with breasts after surgery than before surgery (satisfaction scores of 64.9 ± 5.6 vs. 14.7 ± 11.0). The mean satisfaction score for the overall outcome was 91.3 ± 17.3. However, there was no significant difference in physical well-being (87.1 ± 10.4 vs. 85.2 ± 11.7). No complications such as severe capsular contracture or displacement occurred. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing the need for a type I or II dual-plane pocket can lead to good outcomes and optimal soft-tissue coverage. The higher satisfaction and quality of life reported by our patients indicate that our new design is feasible and safe for most Asians with a medium build. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Entities:
Keywords:
BREAST-Q; Breast augmentation; Dual-plane technique; Endoscope; Micromastia