Dong Won Lee1, Soo Jung Kim1, Hanjo Kim2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Eight Plastic Surgery, EGI Building 7th Floor, 843 Nonhyun-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06031, South Korea. eight.jk@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The incision for breast augmentation can be chosen from the transaxillary, inframammary fold, periareolar, or transumbilical approaches. While the inframammary fold approach is commonly used worldwide, the transaxillary approach is more popular in Asia due to the more conservative location of the scar. In this study, we performed augmentation mammoplasty using anatomically shaped implants via the endoscopic transaxillary and inframammary fold incisions and compared the outcomes. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-four patients who underwent breast augmentation with shaped implants were enrolled. All were primary and bilateral cases. In total, 728 shaped implants were used. Patients' demographics, incision type, and complications were documented. Complications such as capsular contracture, hematoma, infection, implant malposition, wound problem, and chronic seroma were observed during the average 27 months of follow-up period and analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients underwent augmentation mammoplasty via the inframammary approach, whereas 169 patients underwent the endoscopic transaxillary approach. Implant type and size were matched between the two groups. Complication rates were 1.8% and 2.7% in the inframammary and transaxillary approach, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two approaches in terms of surgical complications (p = 0.593). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the endoscopic transaxillary approach is not inferior to the inframammary approach when shaped implants are used for augmentation mammoplasty. Therefore, the transaxillary approach may be an alternative method when using shaped implants for augmentation mammoplasty, especially for women who wish to avoid a visible scar on the inframammary fold. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .
PURPOSE: The incision for breast augmentation can be chosen from the transaxillary, inframammary fold, periareolar, or transumbilical approaches. While the inframammary fold approach is commonly used worldwide, the transaxillary approach is more popular in Asia due to the more conservative location of the scar. In this study, we performed augmentation mammoplasty using anatomically shaped implants via the endoscopic transaxillary and inframammary fold incisions and compared the outcomes. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-four patients who underwent breast augmentation with shaped implants were enrolled. All were primary and bilateral cases. In total, 728 shaped implants were used. Patients' demographics, incision type, and complications were documented. Complications such as capsular contracture, hematoma, infection, implant malposition, wound problem, and chronic seroma were observed during the average 27 months of follow-up period and analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients underwent augmentation mammoplasty via the inframammary approach, whereas 169 patients underwent the endoscopic transaxillary approach. Implant type and size were matched between the two groups. Complication rates were 1.8% and 2.7% in the inframammary and transaxillary approach, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two approaches in terms of surgical complications (p = 0.593). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the endoscopic transaxillary approach is not inferior to the inframammary approach when shaped implants are used for augmentation mammoplasty. Therefore, the transaxillary approach may be an alternative method when using shaped implants for augmentation mammoplasty, especially for women who wish to avoid a visible scar on the inframammary fold. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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:
Axilla; Breast implant; Inframammary fold; Mammoplasty