BACKGROUND: The most critical thing in breast augmentation surgery is to determine the location for implant placement. However, few researches on this were carried out in China. We therefore conducted this retrospective study to compare the recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction at two different implant placement locations-the subglandular plane and the subpectoral plane. METHODS: A total of 144 patients were included. All of them have undergone primary aesthetic breast augmentation with cohesive silicone gel implant. Then they were divided into two groups according to the implant location: group A (in the subglandular plane) and group B (in the subpectoral plane). Data collected were patient data, surgery-related indicators, recovery, complications and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were assigned to group A, and 105 patients to group B. In terms of patient data, no significant difference was found in age, follow-up time and the size of prosthesis between the two groups, but there existed statistically significant difference in body mass index (BMI) and the preoperative mammary tissue thickness (P < 0.05). For surgery-related indicators and recovery, group A was better than group B in surgical blood loss, duration of pain and indwelling drainage tube, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). But regarding the complications, significant difference was found only in the nipple-areola numbness (P < 0.05). Overall, 76% of the patients reported they were "satisfied" with the outcome or the outcome was "perfect". CONCLUSION: Implant placement in the subglandular plane has a shorter recovery period than that in the subpectoral plane. The occurrence of complications and degree of patient satisfaction are similar in the two groups.
BACKGROUND: The most critical thing in breast augmentation surgery is to determine the location for implant placement. However, few researches on this were carried out in China. We therefore conducted this retrospective study to compare the recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction at two different implant placement locations-the subglandular plane and the subpectoral plane. METHODS: A total of 144 patients were included. All of them have undergone primary aesthetic breast augmentation with cohesive silicone gel implant. Then they were divided into two groups according to the implant location: group A (in the subglandular plane) and group B (in the subpectoral plane). Data collected were patient data, surgery-related indicators, recovery, complications and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were assigned to group A, and 105 patients to group B. In terms of patient data, no significant difference was found in age, follow-up time and the size of prosthesis between the two groups, but there existed statistically significant difference in body mass index (BMI) and the preoperative mammary tissue thickness (P < 0.05). For surgery-related indicators and recovery, group A was better than group B in surgical blood loss, duration of pain and indwelling drainage tube, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). But regarding the complications, significant difference was found only in the nipple-areola numbness (P < 0.05). Overall, 76% of the patients reported they were "satisfied" with the outcome or the outcome was "perfect". CONCLUSION: Implant placement in the subglandular plane has a shorter recovery period than that in the subpectoral plane. The occurrence of complications and degree of patient satisfaction are similar in the two groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast augmentation; subglandular; subpectoral
Authors: Trine F Henriksen; Lisbet R Hölmich; Jon P Fryzek; Søren Friis; Joseph K McLaughlin; Annette Pernille Høyer; Kim Kjøller; Jørgen H Olsen Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Bradley P Bengtson; Bruce W Van Natta; Diane K Murphy; Araceli Slicton; G Patrick Maxwell Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Martina I Okwueze; Marcia E Spear; Andrew M Zwyghuizen; Stéphane A Braün; Nadeem Ajmal; Lillian B Nanney; Kevin F Hagan; Sean F Wolfort; R Bruce Shack Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Vladimir Mégevand; Matteo Scampa; Helen McEvoy; Daniel F Kalbermatten; Carlo M Oranges Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 6.575