Maria Lucia Mangialardi1,2,3, Camille Ozil4, Cristophe Lepage4,5. 1. Hôpital américain de Paris, 63, boulevard Victor-Hugo, Via Nomentana 295, Roma 00161, 92200, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. marialucia.mangialardi@hotmail.it. 2. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, 6, 2nd Floor, 16132, Genoa, Italy. marialucia.mangialardi@hotmail.it. 3. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Clinic, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, pad. 15-EX IST, L.go R. Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. marialucia.mangialardi@hotmail.it. 4. Hôpital américain de Paris, 63, boulevard Victor-Hugo, Via Nomentana 295, Roma 00161, 92200, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France. 5. Clinique Turin de Paris, 9 Rue de Turin, 75008, Paris, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Revising unsatisfactory outcomes in breast augmentation represents one of the most challenging procedures in aesthetic breast surgery. Different techniques for revising unsatisfactory outcomes in breast augmentation have been described, which can be summarized in two options: implant replacement procedures and implant explantation procedures. Implant explantation procedures can be performed alone or in combination with other techniques to restore volume. Depending on the native volume, the shape and the elasticity of the remaining breast tissue, implant removal can be also associated with mastopexy, auto-augmentation mammoplasty or fat graft. This article portrays our series of combined mastopexy and lipofilling after implant explantation for revising unsatisfactory outcomes of breast augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective observational study was performed including all patients underwent cosmetic one-stage mastopexy-lipofilling after implant removal. Collected data included patient's age and BMI, smoking, previous scar location (periareolar, inframammary fold or trans-axillary), implant characteristics (size and location), reason why patient wants to remove the implant (capsular contracture, implant rupture, animation deformity, chronic pain, asymmetry), mean liposuction and fat injection volume, type of capsulectomy, mean operating time and postoperative complications. Cosmetic results and patient satisfaction were evaluated using the 5 points Likert scale and BreastQ reduction/mastopexy module, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients (28 breasts) were included with a mean follow-up of 11.3 months. Mean liposuction and injection volumes were 980 mL and 295 mL, respectively. Regarding breast volume, a reduction in one-cup size was noted in 100% of cases. Only one patient (7.69%) requested additional breast volume and underwent a second fat grafting session. Regarding aesthetic outcomes, the mean scores for breast volume, shape, symmetry, quality of scars, nipple-areola complex and donor site shape were 4.2, 4.2, 4.9, 4, 4.3 and 4.7, respectively. BreastQ showed an improvement of patients reported satisfaction with a median (Quartile Rank) score increase of 19 points for the "satisfaction with breast" domain (p < .00001) and a decrease of 17 points for the "physical well-being" domain (p < .00001). "Satisfaction with outcomes" median (Quartile Rank) score was 72. CONCLUSION: Combined mastopexy and lipofilling after implant removal represents a new tool in plastic surgeon armamentarium. This technique is indicated in patients who do not desire anymore breast implant, presenting ptosis of the remaining breast gland and donor site availability. Our article suggested that combined mastopexy and lipofilling achieves satisfactory aesthetic results and excellent patient-reported 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 www.springer.com/00266 .
INTRODUCTION: Revising unsatisfactory outcomes in breast augmentation represents one of the most challenging procedures in aesthetic breast surgery. Different techniques for revising unsatisfactory outcomes in breast augmentation have been described, which can be summarized in two options: implant replacement procedures and implant explantation procedures. Implant explantation procedures can be performed alone or in combination with other techniques to restore volume. Depending on the native volume, the shape and the elasticity of the remaining breast tissue, implant removal can be also associated with mastopexy, auto-augmentation mammoplasty or fat graft. This article portrays our series of combined mastopexy and lipofilling after implant explantation for revising unsatisfactory outcomes of breast augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective observational study was performed including all patients underwent cosmetic one-stage mastopexy-lipofilling after implant removal. Collected data included patient's age and BMI, smoking, previous scar location (periareolar, inframammary fold or trans-axillary), implant characteristics (size and location), reason why patient wants to remove the implant (capsular contracture, implant rupture, animation deformity, chronic pain, asymmetry), mean liposuction and fat injection volume, type of capsulectomy, mean operating time and postoperative complications. Cosmetic results and patient satisfaction were evaluated using the 5 points Likert scale and BreastQ reduction/mastopexy module, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients (28 breasts) were included with a mean follow-up of 11.3 months. Mean liposuction and injection volumes were 980 mL and 295 mL, respectively. Regarding breast volume, a reduction in one-cup size was noted in 100% of cases. Only one patient (7.69%) requested additional breast volume and underwent a second fat grafting session. Regarding aesthetic outcomes, the mean scores for breast volume, shape, symmetry, quality of scars, nipple-areola complex and donor site shape were 4.2, 4.2, 4.9, 4, 4.3 and 4.7, respectively. BreastQ showed an improvement of patients reported satisfaction with a median (Quartile Rank) score increase of 19 points for the "satisfaction with breast" domain (p < .00001) and a decrease of 17 points for the "physical well-being" domain (p < .00001). "Satisfaction with outcomes" median (Quartile Rank) score was 72. CONCLUSION: Combined mastopexy and lipofilling after implant removal represents a new tool in plastic surgeon armamentarium. This technique is indicated in patients who do not desire anymore breast implant, presenting ptosis of the remaining breast gland and donor site availability. Our article suggested that combined mastopexy and lipofilling achieves satisfactory aesthetic results and excellent patient-reported 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 www.springer.com/00266 .