Adriano Santorelli1,2, Ferdinando Rossano3, Barbara Cagli4, Stefano Avvedimento5, Ali Ghanem6, Sergio Marlino7,8. 1. Plastic Surgery, Health Park, Via Michelangelo Schipa 40, 80122, Naples, Italy. santoadri@me.com. 2. Plastic Surgery, Clinica Grimaldi, San Giorgio a Cremano, Naples, Italy. santoadri@me.com. 3. Health and Progress, Benevento, Italy. 4. Campus Bio-Medico, University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 5. Plastic Surgery Private Practice, Naples, Italy. 6. Centre for Cutaneous Research, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science, London, UK. 7. Plastic Surgery, Health Park, Via Michelangelo Schipa 40, 80122, Naples, Italy. 8. Plastic Surgery, Clinica Grimaldi, San Giorgio a Cremano, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several systematic methods for breast augmentation have been published, providing key principles and technical steps for minimizing complications and optimizing patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to compare complication rates in patients receiving a breast augmentation performed using a structured, standardized approach versus comparator patients operated on without a standardized approach. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective review of 290 consecutive breast augmentations performed between October 2016 and September 2017 based on a standardized technique (Randquist's "five P's" combined with Adams' 14-point plan), and 235 comparators who underwent breast augmentations prior to standardization between April 2014 and September 2016. All study subjects were females aged ≥ 18 years, undergoing bilateral breast augmentation, either alone or in the context of augmentation mastopexy or implant replacement. Various implant ranges were used before standardization; most (94.8%) of the standardized procedures used Natrelle® devices. Follow-up lasted for ≥ 12 months. RESULTS: Significantly fewer patients in the standardized surgery group experienced complications (14.5%, n = 42) compared with the non-standardized group [29.4%, n = 69; Chi square = 6.57; degrees of freedom (df) = 1; p = 0.01041]. Complication rates were also significantly lower in the standardized surgery group for each of the three types of breast augmentation surgery assessed separately. Reoperation rates with standardized and non-standardized surgery were 4.1% (n = 12) and 11.9% (n = 28), respectively (Chi square = 6.4; df = 1; p = 0.01145). Patient satisfaction was increased post-surgery in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a structured, standardized approach to breast augmentation reduced the risk of postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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: Several systematic methods for breast augmentation have been published, providing key principles and technical steps for minimizing complications and optimizing patient satisfaction. The aim of this study was to compare complication rates in patients receiving a breast augmentation performed using a structured, standardized approach versus comparator patients operated on without a standardized approach. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective review of 290 consecutive breast augmentations performed between October 2016 and September 2017 based on a standardized technique (Randquist's "five P's" combined with Adams' 14-point plan), and 235 comparators who underwent breast augmentations prior to standardization between April 2014 and September 2016. All study subjects were females aged ≥ 18 years, undergoing bilateral breast augmentation, either alone or in the context of augmentation mastopexy or implant replacement. Various implant ranges were used before standardization; most (94.8%) of the standardized procedures used Natrelle® devices. Follow-up lasted for ≥ 12 months. RESULTS: Significantly fewer patients in the standardized surgery group experienced complications (14.5%, n = 42) compared with the non-standardized group [29.4%, n = 69; Chi square = 6.57; degrees of freedom (df) = 1; p = 0.01041]. Complication rates were also significantly lower in the standardized surgery group for each of the three types of breast augmentation surgery assessed separately. Reoperation rates with standardized and non-standardized surgery were 4.1% (n = 12) and 11.9% (n = 28), respectively (Chi square = 6.4; df = 1; p = 0.01145). Patient satisfaction was increased post-surgery in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a structured, standardized approach to breast augmentation reduced the risk of postoperative complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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:
14-Point plan; Breast augmentation; Five P’s
Authors: Stacey J Jones; Philip Turton; Rajgopal Achuthan; Brian V Hogan; Shireen N Mckenzie; Baek Kim Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2020-12-17
Authors: Adriano Santorelli; Marco Bernini; Lorenzo Orzalesi; Stefano Avvedimento; Paolo Palumbo; Ashutosh Kothari; Alfonso Fausto; Cesare Magalotti; Giuseppina Buzzi; Sara Sandroni; Claudio Calabrese Journal: Aesthet Surg J Open Forum Date: 2021-05-04