Ruth M Graf1,2, Maria C Closs Ono3,4, Daniele Pace4, Priscilla Balbinot4, André L B Pazio4, Dayane R de Paula3. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital de Clínicas, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. ruthgraf@uol.com.br. 2. Pietà Medical Center, Rua Solimões, 1175, Merces, Curitiba, Paraná, 80810-070, Brazil. ruthgraf@uol.com.br. 3. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital de Clínicas, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. 4. Pietà Medical Center, Rua Solimões, 1175, Merces, Curitiba, Paraná, 80810-070, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation with implants is one of the most commonly performed plastic surgical procedures, but has potential complications-asymmetry, implant displacement, rippling and wrinkling, capsular contracture, late seromas, and benign and malignant tumors-and potential financial costs. The auto-augmentation procedure, with mastopexy and lipofilling, is a second option to offer to patients who do not desire to continue with breast implants in secondary procedures. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to present a series of patients who intended to quit having breast implants, and they went to an auto-augmentation procedure, with mastopexy and lipofilling. METHOD: The study included patients who underwent a mastopexy plus lipofilling following breast implant removal. The indications for the surgical procedure were: desire of not having breast implants anymore and smaller breasts, capsular contracture, and implant rupture. The surgical procedure is detailed. Fat grafting and mastopexy are done immediately at the time of explantation. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (mean age 59.1 years) underwent mastopexy plus lipofilling following breast implant removal. The mean follow-up was 18 months. The mean amount of lipofilling was 258 cc. No major complications were observed, no infection, dehiscence, hematoma, or seroma. One patient had an oil cyst which was handled with resection. CONCLUSION: The auto-augmentation procedure after implant removal with local flaps and lipofilling is the better option for patients in whom breast implants are not an option anymore. Complication and reoperation rates are low and patient satisfaction is good. 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: Breast augmentation with implants is one of the most commonly performed plastic surgical procedures, but has potential complications-asymmetry, implant displacement, rippling and wrinkling, capsular contracture, late seromas, and benign and malignant tumors-and potential financial costs. The auto-augmentation procedure, with mastopexy and lipofilling, is a second option to offer to patients who do not desire to continue with breast implants in secondary procedures. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to present a series of patients who intended to quit having breast implants, and they went to an auto-augmentation procedure, with mastopexy and lipofilling. METHOD: The study included patients who underwent a mastopexy plus lipofilling following breast implant removal. The indications for the surgical procedure were: desire of not having breast implants anymore and smaller breasts, capsular contracture, and implant rupture. The surgical procedure is detailed. Fat grafting and mastopexy are done immediately at the time of explantation. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (mean age 59.1 years) underwent mastopexy plus lipofilling following breast implant removal. The mean follow-up was 18 months. The mean amount of lipofilling was 258 cc. No major complications were observed, no infection, dehiscence, hematoma, or seroma. One patient had an oil cyst which was handled with resection. CONCLUSION: The auto-augmentation procedure after implant removal with local flaps and lipofilling is the better option for patients in whom breast implants are not an option anymore. Complication and reoperation rates are low and patient satisfaction is good. 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 .
Authors: Matthew J Davis; Aurelia T Perdanasari; Amjed Abu-Ghname; Santiago R Gonzalez; Edward Chamata; Charalambos K Rammos; Sebastian J Winocour Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2020-02-15 Impact factor: 2.314
Authors: Shafreena Kühn; Mara Anna Georgijewitsch; Andrej Wehle; Moritz Billner; Lara Küenzlen; Jens Rothenberger; Ulrich Michael Rieger Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 2.268
Authors: Nicholas Wilssens; Apresh Singla; Stuart Hoffman; Susannah Graham; Nipu Jayatilleke; Sepehr Lajevardi; Anthony Barker; Anand K Deva Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-07-27