Alexandre Mendonça Munhoz1,2,3,4, Ary de Azevedo Marques Neto5,6,7,8, João Maximiliano6,9. 1. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital Sírio-Libanês Rua Mato Grosso, 306 cj.1706 Higienópolis, São Paulo, 01239-040, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 2. Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (SBCP), São Paulo, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 3. Breast Surgery Group, Plastic Surgery Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 4. Plastic Surgery Department, Hospital Moriah, São Paulo, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 5. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital Sírio-Libanês Rua Mato Grosso, 306 cj.1706 Higienópolis, São Paulo, 01239-040, Brazil. 6. Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery (SBCP), São Paulo, Brazil. 7. Plastic Surgery Department, Hospital Moriah, São Paulo, Brazil. 8. Hospital Moriah, São Paulo, Brazil. 9. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous association of autologous fat grafting (AFG) with silicone implants, defined as a hybrid procedure, has been proposed for breast augmentation (BA). In some patients, larger-volume implants may result in larger incisions, with long-term effects including implant palpability, soft tissue atrophy, and secondary ptosis. Some patients do not want large volume implants, or have insufficient soft tissue coverage. Recent improvements in AFG have led to new surgical options in BA for addressing these cases. OBJECTIVES: This study combines AFG in BA using small-volume implants, known as the SWEH (soft weight hybrid) approach, and evaluates aesthetic advantages and outcomes following primary/secondary BA. METHODS: 25 patients (50 breasts) underwent SWEH procedures; this approach was indicated when the overlying tissue was insufficient to adequately cover the implant and patients refused large-volume implants. Three-dimensional images were obtained using a Divina 3D scanner system (AX3 Technologies, Miami, USA) to assess breast volume (BV) and intermammary distance (IMD) during follow-up. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 29.3 years (range: 21-42) and mean body mass index was 19.3 kg/m2 (15.3-27.2). The most common implant (SmoothSilk surface Round/Ergonomix style) volume was 180 cc (175-215), and patients received a mean volume of 125 cc of fat (89-168)/breast in the subcutaneous tissue. Preoperative average BV measurements were 236.85 cc (170-335). At 3 and 12 months post-procedure, the average BV values were 488.82 and 478.73cc, respectively (p=0.475). The average preoperative IMD was 31.76 mm (range, 22-43); at 3 and 12 months post-procedure, the average IMD was 20.47 and 20.94 mm, respectively (p=0.61). Postoperative complications included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (n = 1; 4%) and hypertrophic scarring (n = 1; 4%). Breast imaging exams were performed; in 2 breasts (8%) localized oil cysts were observed; no cases of suspicious calcifications, fat necrosis, or lumps were seen. Fat retention rate (1 year) was calculated by the difference between the BV expected with 100% fat intake and the real BV observed. In our sample we observed an average of 72.7 (range: 69.2-77.3, SD: 2.63) and 76.7 (range: 72.3-79.9, SD: 2.18) percent of fat intake on the right and the left breast respectively. No rippling, implant malposition, or infection was observed during a mean follow-up of 22 months (6-40). CONCLUSIONS: SWEH is a useful surgical alternative that combines the benefits of AFG and implant-based augmentation, particularly with regard to soft tissue coverage, and avoids the limitations of larger-volume implants. The association of small-volume gel implants and smaller scars can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. 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 http://www.springer.com/00266 .
BACKGROUND: Simultaneous association of autologous fat grafting (AFG) with silicone implants, defined as a hybrid procedure, has been proposed for breast augmentation (BA). In some patients, larger-volume implants may result in larger incisions, with long-term effects including implant palpability, soft tissue atrophy, and secondary ptosis. Some patients do not want large volume implants, or have insufficient soft tissue coverage. Recent improvements in AFG have led to new surgical options in BA for addressing these cases. OBJECTIVES: This study combines AFG in BA using small-volume implants, known as the SWEH (soft weight hybrid) approach, and evaluates aesthetic advantages and outcomes following primary/secondary BA. METHODS: 25 patients (50 breasts) underwent SWEH procedures; this approach was indicated when the overlying tissue was insufficient to adequately cover the implant and patients refused large-volume implants. Three-dimensional images were obtained using a Divina 3D scanner system (AX3 Technologies, Miami, USA) to assess breast volume (BV) and intermammary distance (IMD) during follow-up. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 29.3 years (range: 21-42) and mean body mass index was 19.3 kg/m2 (15.3-27.2). The most common implant (SmoothSilk surface Round/Ergonomix style) volume was 180 cc (175-215), and patients received a mean volume of 125 cc of fat (89-168)/breast in the subcutaneous tissue. Preoperative average BV measurements were 236.85 cc (170-335). At 3 and 12 months post-procedure, the average BV values were 488.82 and 478.73cc, respectively (p=0.475). The average preoperative IMD was 31.76 mm (range, 22-43); at 3 and 12 months post-procedure, the average IMD was 20.47 and 20.94 mm, respectively (p=0.61). Postoperative complications included subcutaneous banding in the axilla (n = 1; 4%) and hypertrophic scarring (n = 1; 4%). Breast imaging exams were performed; in 2 breasts (8%) localized oil cysts were observed; no cases of suspicious calcifications, fat necrosis, or lumps were seen. Fat retention rate (1 year) was calculated by the difference between the BV expected with 100% fat intake and the real BV observed. In our sample we observed an average of 72.7 (range: 69.2-77.3, SD: 2.63) and 76.7 (range: 72.3-79.9, SD: 2.18) percent of fat intake on the right and the left breast respectively. No rippling, implant malposition, or infection was observed during a mean follow-up of 22 months (6-40). CONCLUSIONS: SWEH is a useful surgical alternative that combines the benefits of AFG and implant-based augmentation, particularly with regard to soft tissue coverage, and avoids the limitations of larger-volume implants. The association of small-volume gel implants and smaller scars can yield satisfactory aesthetic outcomes. 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 http://www.springer.com/00266 .
Authors: José Maria Serra-Mestre; Randolfo Fernandez Peñuela; Vanessa Foti; Francesco D'Andrea; José Maria Serra-Renom Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.730