Alexandre Mendonça Munhoz1,2,3,4, Ary de Azevedo Marques Neto5,6,7,8,9, João Maximiliano6,10. 1. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Rua Mato Grosso, 306 cj.1706 Higienópolis, Sao Paulo, SP, 01239-040, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 2. Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery, Sao Paulo, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 3. Breast Surgery Group, Plastic Surgery Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 4. Plastic Surgery Department, Hospital Moriah, Sao Paulo, Brazil. alexandremunhoz@hotmail.com. 5. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, Rua Mato Grosso, 306 cj.1706 Higienópolis, Sao Paulo, SP, 01239-040, Brazil. 6. Brazilian Society of Plastic Surgery, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 7. Breast Surgery Group, Plastic Surgery Division, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 8. Plastic Surgery Department, Hospital Moriah, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 9. Hospital Moriah, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 10. Plastic Surgery Division, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reoperative augmentation mammoplasty (RAM) is a challenging procedure, with the highest rates of complications and revision. Complications include implant malposition, lateral displacement, bottoming out, and rotation. These deformities can be addressed with various procedures, but the pocket control and stability of the new smooth implant surface may present limitations. OBJECTIVES: This study revisits a previously described predictable approach in primary breast augmentation and defines a surgical treatment algorithm for RAM technique selection. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 72 patients (144 breasts) underwent RAM with composite reverse inferior muscle sling (CRIMS) technique and its technical variations (types I-IV). CRIMS technique involves placing a silicone gel implant into the submuscular (SM) pocket with an inferior sling of the pectoralis major muscle based on the dimensions of the implant, in combination with support points/dermal bridge sutures to stabilize the implant and glandular tissue at the lower breast pole (LBP). Reasons for surgery were ptosis (92%), implant and malposition (59.6%). Patients were followed for at least 6 months in 5 cases (6.9%), at least 12 months in 50 cases (69.4%), for at least 36 months in 10 cases (13.8%), and more than 36 months in 7 cases (9.7%) (mean 34 months; range 6-48 months). Patients were evaluated in terms of resolution of symptoms, satisfaction, and complications. Three-dimensional imaging (3DI) obtained from the Divina scanner system was used and followed up for 1 year to evaluate breast position, lower pole stretch (LPS), and intermammary distance (IMD). RESULTS: Eleven cases of minor complications were observed in 9 patients (12.5%): hypertrophic scarring in 4 (5.5%), wound dehiscence in 4 (5.5%), Baker II/III capsular contracture in 1 (1.3%). SmoothSilk surface silicone implants were used in all cases, with an average volume decrease of 120 cc. Sixty-eight patients (94.4%) were either very satisfied/satisfied with their aesthetic result. Breast images were performed in a group of 65 patients (90.2%), and in 7 breasts (10.7%), localized oil cysts were observed. The value for LPS was 7.87% (p <0.0001) between 10 days and 1 year, with the majority occurring early in the first 3 months, indicating that the LBP/implant remains steady during the last months of follow-up. No cases of fat necrosis/seroma were observed. There were no signs of intra/extracapsular ruptures, capsular contracture. There were 2 cases (3%) of minimal implant displacement and no cases of rotation. CONCLUSIONS: CRIMS and its variations can be performed successfully in RAM. An algorithmic approach can facilitate the pre- and intraoperative decision-making process and provide the new pocket control and implant stability with acceptable complication rates. Further accurate evaluation is recommended to understand the benefits or disadvantages of CRIMS compared to other RAM techniques. 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: Reoperative augmentation mammoplasty (RAM) is a challenging procedure, with the highest rates of complications and revision. Complications include implant malposition, lateral displacement, bottoming out, and rotation. These deformities can be addressed with various procedures, but the pocket control and stability of the new smooth implant surface may present limitations. OBJECTIVES: This study revisits a previously described predictable approach in primary breast augmentation and defines a surgical treatment algorithm for RAM technique selection. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2021, 72 patients (144 breasts) underwent RAM with composite reverse inferior muscle sling (CRIMS) technique and its technical variations (types I-IV). CRIMS technique involves placing a silicone gel implant into the submuscular (SM) pocket with an inferior sling of the pectoralis major muscle based on the dimensions of the implant, in combination with support points/dermal bridge sutures to stabilize the implant and glandular tissue at the lower breast pole (LBP). Reasons for surgery were ptosis (92%), implant and malposition (59.6%). Patients were followed for at least 6 months in 5 cases (6.9%), at least 12 months in 50 cases (69.4%), for at least 36 months in 10 cases (13.8%), and more than 36 months in 7 cases (9.7%) (mean 34 months; range 6-48 months). Patients were evaluated in terms of resolution of symptoms, satisfaction, and complications. Three-dimensional imaging (3DI) obtained from the Divina scanner system was used and followed up for 1 year to evaluate breast position, lower pole stretch (LPS), and intermammary distance (IMD). RESULTS: Eleven cases of minor complications were observed in 9 patients (12.5%): hypertrophic scarring in 4 (5.5%), wound dehiscence in 4 (5.5%), Baker II/III capsular contracture in 1 (1.3%). SmoothSilk surface silicone implants were used in all cases, with an average volume decrease of 120 cc. Sixty-eight patients (94.4%) were either very satisfied/satisfied with their aesthetic result. Breast images were performed in a group of 65 patients (90.2%), and in 7 breasts (10.7%), localized oil cysts were observed. The value for LPS was 7.87% (p <0.0001) between 10 days and 1 year, with the majority occurring early in the first 3 months, indicating that the LBP/implant remains steady during the last months of follow-up. No cases of fat necrosis/seroma were observed. There were no signs of intra/extracapsular ruptures, capsular contracture. There were 2 cases (3%) of minimal implant displacement and no cases of rotation. CONCLUSIONS: CRIMS and its variations can be performed successfully in RAM. An algorithmic approach can facilitate the pre- and intraoperative decision-making process and provide the new pocket control and implant stability with acceptable complication rates. Further accurate evaluation is recommended to understand the benefits or disadvantages of CRIMS compared to other RAM techniques. 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 .