Literature DB >> 31741882

Long-term results measured by BREAST-Q reveal higher patient satisfaction after "autoimplant-mastopexy" than augmentation-mastopexy.

Lisanne Grünherz1, Anna Burger1, Pietro Giovanoli1, Nicole Lindenblatt1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of a mastopexy is to raise the breast projection, tighten the skin envelope, and place the nipples in an optimal position in projection to the inframammary fold. This procedure is often combined with prosthetic implants or an autoimplant. Given the current increasing demand for the use of autologous tissue, we evaluated mastopexies combined with either an autoimplant or prosthetic implant in terms of patient satisfaction and long-term results.
METHODS: We evaluated 34 patients who underwent a mastopexy with simultaneous breast prosthesis or an autoimplant. During follow-ups we obtained standardized breast measurements, BREAST-Q score, and pre- and postoperative photographs to perform photometric measurements.
RESULTS: BREAST-Q score of patients that underwent autoimplant-mastopexies revealed a higher patient satisfaction with significant differences in satisfaction with breast appearance (69±18 vs. 55±16, P=0.03) and outcome (71±18 vs. 48±26, P=0.009). Regarding breast shape, photometric evaluations presented a significantly different breast shape with higher upper pole fullness in augmentation-mastopexy patients. No statistical significance between long-term results and complication rates could be observed in either patient groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The BREAST-Q score implies a higher overall long-term satisfaction in patients that received autoimplant-mastopexy with similar long-term results compared with augmentation-mastopexy. Nevertheless, individual decision-making is necessary and should be based on the degree of ptosis, existing breast volume, previous operations, and patients' preferences regarding postoperative breast shape and projection. 2019 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast ptosis; mammaplasty; patient satisfaction

Year:  2019        PMID: 31741882      PMCID: PMC6842755          DOI: 10.21037/gs.2019.09.05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  36 in total

1.  A measurement system for evaluation of shape changes and proportions after cosmetic breast surgery.

Authors:  Eric Swanson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 2.  Mastopexy after massive weight loss: dermal suspension and selective auto-augmentation.

Authors:  J Peter Rubin; Gerald Khachi
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.017

Review 3.  A systematic review of single-stage augmentation-mastopexy.

Authors:  Nima Khavanin; Sumanas W Jordan; Aksharananda Rambachan; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Prospective comparative clinical evaluation of 784 consecutive cases of breast augmentation and vertical mammaplasty, performed individually and in combination.

Authors:  Eric Swanson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Immediate Breast Reconstruction: Results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study.

Authors:  Andrea L Pusic; Evan Matros; Neil Fine; Edward Buchel; Gayle M Gordillo; Jennifer B Hamill; Hyungjin M Kim; Ji Qi; Claudia Albornoz; Anne F Klassen; Edwin G Wilkins
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Silicone breast implant rupture: a review.

Authors:  Christopher Hillard; Jason D Fowler; Ruth Barta; Bruce Cunningham
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-04

7.  Treatment of wounds following breast reduction and mastopexy with subsequent wound dehiscence with charged polystyrene microspheres.

Authors:  Oren Weissman; Eyal Winkler; Luc Teot; Eric Remer; Nimrod Farber; Jonathan Bank; Gabriel Hundeshagen; Isaac Zilinsky; Josef Haik
Journal:  Wounds       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.546

8.  Breast Reshaping Following Bariatric Surgery.

Authors:  Vincenzo Vindigni; Carlotta Scarpa; Antonio Tommasini; Maria Cristina Toffanin; Laura Masetto; Chiara Pavan; Franco Bassetto
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.129

9.  Autoaugmentation mastopexy with an inferior-based pedicle.

Authors:  Johannes Franz Hönig; Hans Peter Frey; Frank Michael Hasse; Jens Hasselberg
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2009-02-19       Impact factor: 2.326

Review 10.  Different types of implants for reconstructive breast surgery.

Authors:  Nicola Rocco; Corrado Rispoli; Lorenzo Moja; Bruno Amato; Loredana Iannone; Serena Testa; Andrea Spano; Giuseppe Catanuto; Antonello Accurso; Maurizio B Nava
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-05-16
View more
  2 in total

1.  A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements.

Authors:  Eric Swanson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-09-21

2.  A Modified Superior Pedicle Mastopexy Technique with an Inferolateral-Based Auto Augmentation Flap.

Authors:  Yue Liu; Jie Luan
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.326

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.