Paolo Montemurro1, Mubashir Cheema1, Per Hedén1, Björn Behr1, Christoph Wallner1. 1. From Akademikliniken; the Department of Plastic Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham; and the Department of Plastic Surgery, BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Ruhr University Bochum.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Augmentation mastopexy may be a one- or two-stage procedure. Because of the opposing force vectors in augmentation and in mastopexy, some surgeons advocate a two-stage procedure. The literature appears divided on which operation has a more favorable complication profile. The purpose of this review was to benchmark the outcomes of single-stage augmentation mastopexy against those of a commonly performed aesthetic breast operation (primary breast augmentation). METHODS: THE AUTHORS: reviewed electronic patient records of all consecutive female patients who underwent single-stage augmentation mastopexy and primary breast augmentation performed by the first author at our clinic between April of 2009 and May of 2017 with at least a 6-month follow-up. Data from single-stage augmentation mastopexy were benchmarked against the outcomes of primary breast augmentations performed by the same surgeon, for the same period, and at the same clinic. RESULTS: ONE HUNDRED FOUR: single-stage augmentation mastopexies and 801 primary breast augmentations were performed during this period, with mean follow-up of 15.4 months and 14.0 months, respectively. Augmentation mastopexy patients were significantly more likely to be older, have a higher body mass index, have more children, and were significantly less likely to use oral contraceptives. There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication rate between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: THE AUTHORS': experience suggests that single-stage augmentation mastopexy has outcomes comparable to those of primary breast augmentation. Smokers were more likely to undergo reoperation because of postoperative complication (seroma), but the rate of implant exchange was not different. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: THERAPEUTIC, III.
BACKGROUND: Augmentation mastopexy may be a one- or two-stage procedure. Because of the opposing force vectors in augmentation and in mastopexy, some surgeons advocate a two-stage procedure. The literature appears divided on which operation has a more favorable complication profile. The purpose of this review was to benchmark the outcomes of single-stage augmentation mastopexy against those of a commonly performed aesthetic breast operation (primary breast augmentation). METHODS: THE AUTHORS: reviewed electronic patient records of all consecutive female patients who underwent single-stage augmentation mastopexy and primary breast augmentation performed by the first author at our clinic between April of 2009 and May of 2017 with at least a 6-month follow-up. Data from single-stage augmentation mastopexy were benchmarked against the outcomes of primary breast augmentations performed by the same surgeon, for the same period, and at the same clinic. RESULTS: ONE HUNDRED FOUR: single-stage augmentation mastopexies and 801 primary breast augmentations were performed during this period, with mean follow-up of 15.4 months and 14.0 months, respectively. Augmentation mastopexy patients were significantly more likely to be older, have a higher body mass index, have more children, and were significantly less likely to use oral contraceptives. There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication rate between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: THE AUTHORS': experience suggests that single-stage augmentation mastopexy has outcomes comparable to those of primary breast augmentation. Smokers were more likely to undergo reoperation because of postoperative complication (seroma), but the rate of implant exchange was not different. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: THERAPEUTIC, III.
Authors: Christoph Wallner; Vanessa Dahlmann; Paolo Montemurro; Sherko Kümmel; Mattea Reinisch; Marius Drysch; Sonja Verena Schmidt; Felix Reinkemeier; Julika Huber; Johannes Maximilian Wagner; Alexander Sogorski; Mehran Dadras; Maxi von Glinski; Marcus Lehnhardt; Björn Behr Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 2.708