BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation in trans-women requires special consideration and thorough preoperative planning. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to present our long-term outcome and experience gained over the past 21 years. METHODS: Trans-women who have undergone breast augmentation since 1995 were reviewed for primary surgery, type of incision, implant site, implant size and shape, and revisions. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients with a follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 2.0-13.3) were included. In 112 patients (82.4%), the inframammary incision was chosen. Subpectoral implantation was performed in 70 patients (51.5%). Round breast implants (91 patients, 66.9%, P = 0.010) with low projection (103 patients, 75.7%, P < 0.001) were favored. The implant size used during 2011-2016 of 363.3 ± 97.3 cc was significantly increased as compared to the implant size reported during 1995-1999 (mean difference, +142.1 cc, P < 0.001) and 2000-2004 (mean difference, +113.5 cc, P < 0.001). Simultaneously, revision rates dropped significantly over time (52.9% during 1995-1999 as compared to 6.9% during 2011-2016, P < 0.001). Overall, request for larger implants was the most common indication for revision (13 patients, 9.4%) after 6 months (range, 4.0-18.7). At revision, implant volume was 355.4 ± 132.8 cc, showing significant increase of 107.0 ± 48.1 cc as compared to primary implants (+30.0%, P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Request for larger breast implants was the most common reason for revision. Depending on the various degrees of breast tissue growth due to hormonal therapy, whenever applicable, we recommend round, low projection implants with a mean size of 360 cc in the prepectoral pocket.
BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation in trans-women requires special consideration and thorough preoperative planning. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to present our long-term outcome and experience gained over the past 21 years. METHODS: Trans-women who have undergone breast augmentation since 1995 were reviewed for primary surgery, type of incision, implant site, implant size and shape, and revisions. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients with a follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 2.0-13.3) were included. In 112 patients (82.4%), the inframammary incision was chosen. Subpectoral implantation was performed in 70 patients (51.5%). Round breast implants (91 patients, 66.9%, P = 0.010) with low projection (103 patients, 75.7%, P < 0.001) were favored. The implant size used during 2011-2016 of 363.3 ± 97.3 cc was significantly increased as compared to the implant size reported during 1995-1999 (mean difference, +142.1 cc, P < 0.001) and 2000-2004 (mean difference, +113.5 cc, P < 0.001). Simultaneously, revision rates dropped significantly over time (52.9% during 1995-1999 as compared to 6.9% during 2011-2016, P < 0.001). Overall, request for larger implants was the most common indication for revision (13 patients, 9.4%) after 6 months (range, 4.0-18.7). At revision, implant volume was 355.4 ± 132.8 cc, showing significant increase of 107.0 ± 48.1 cc as compared to primary implants (+30.0%, P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Request for larger breast implants was the most common reason for revision. Depending on the various degrees of breast tissue growth due to hormonal therapy, whenever applicable, we recommend round, low projection implants with a mean size of 360 cc in the prepectoral pocket.
Authors: E Coleman; A E Radix; W P Bouman; G R Brown; A L C de Vries; M B Deutsch; R Ettner; L Fraser; M Goodman; J Green; A B Hancock; T W Johnson; D H Karasic; G A Knudson; S F Leibowitz; H F L Meyer-Bahlburg; S J Monstrey; J Motmans; L Nahata; T O Nieder; S L Reisner; C Richards; L S Schechter; V Tangpricha; A C Tishelman; M A A Van Trotsenburg; S Winter; K Ducheny; N J Adams; T M Adrián; L R Allen; D Azul; H Bagga; K Başar; D S Bathory; J J Belinky; D R Berg; J U Berli; R O Bluebond-Langner; M-B Bouman; M L Bowers; P J Brassard; J Byrne; L Capitán; C J Cargill; J M Carswell; S C Chang; G Chelvakumar; T Corneil; K B Dalke; G De Cuypere; E de Vries; M Den Heijer; A H Devor; C Dhejne; A D'Marco; E K Edmiston; L Edwards-Leeper; R Ehrbar; D Ehrensaft; J Eisfeld; E Elaut; L Erickson-Schroth; J L Feldman; A D Fisher; M M Garcia; L Gijs; S E Green; B P Hall; T L D Hardy; M S Irwig; L A Jacobs; A C Janssen; K Johnson; D T Klink; B P C Kreukels; L E Kuper; E J Kvach; M A Malouf; R Massey; T Mazur; C McLachlan; S D Morrison; S W Mosser; P M Neira; U Nygren; J M Oates; J Obedin-Maliver; G Pagkalos; J Patton; N Phanuphak; K Rachlin; T Reed; G N Rider; J Ristori; S Robbins-Cherry; S A Roberts; K A Rodriguez-Wallberg; S M Rosenthal; K Sabir; J D Safer; A I Scheim; L J Seal; T J Sehoole; K Spencer; C St Amand; T D Steensma; J F Strang; G B Taylor; K Tilleman; G G T'Sjoen; L N Vala; N M Van Mello; J F Veale; J A Vencill; B Vincent; L M Wesp; M A West; J Arcelus Journal: Int J Transgend Health Date: 2022-09-06
Authors: Nicholas G Cuccolo; Christine O Kang; Elizabeth R Boskey; Ahmed M S Ibrahim; Louise L Blankensteijn; Amir Taghinia; Bernard T Lee; Samuel J Lin; Oren Ganor Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2019-10-29
Authors: Geetika Mehra; Tal Kaufman-Goldberg; Sagit Meshulam-Derazon; Elizabeth R Boskey; Oren Ganor Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-01-21