.: ORİJİNAL ARAŞTIRMA
Tips and Tricks in Breast Augmentation and Mastopexy-Augmentation
Meme Büyütme ve Mastopeksi-Büyütmede İpuçları
Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2019;39(2):150-9
doi: 10.5336/medsci.2018-61338
Makale Dili: EN
Tam Metin
ABSTRACT
Objective: Breast augmentation operations are becoming increasingly popular in Turkey just like they are all over the world. The aim of this study is to determine the precautions to be taken in order to decrease the complication rate in breast augmentation and compare the results obtained in our clinic with relative data from the literature. Material and Methods: We analyzed three hundred and thirty patients who had undergone for breast augmentation or mastopexy-augmentation procedures between 2003 and 2017. Demographic data of the patients, all the parameters related to implants and surgical techniques as well as complications were evaluated. Results: Of the 330 patients, 258 (78.1%) had breast augmentation and 72 (21.9%) had mastopexy and augmentation. Eight patients (2.4%) had secondary breast augmentation. Due to complications such as capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, recurrence of the breast ptosis, patient dissatisfaction, 15 patients (4.5%) underwent revisional surgery. Conclusion: There are many factors affecting the outcome in breast augmentation. A detailed evaluation of the patients preoperatively, determining the applicability of the wishes and expectations of the patients and planning the operation are the most important factors affecting the outcome.
Keywords: Breast; implants; silicone; mastopexy
Objective: Breast augmentation operations are becoming increasingly popular in Turkey just like they are all over the world. The aim of this study is to determine the precautions to be taken in order to decrease the complication rate in breast augmentation and compare the results obtained in our clinic with relative data from the literature. Material and Methods: We analyzed three hundred and thirty patients who had undergone for breast augmentation or mastopexy-augmentation procedures between 2003 and 2017. Demographic data of the patients, all the parameters related to implants and surgical techniques as well as complications were evaluated. Results: Of the 330 patients, 258 (78.1%) had breast augmentation and 72 (21.9%) had mastopexy and augmentation. Eight patients (2.4%) had secondary breast augmentation. Due to complications such as capsular contracture, rupture, malposition, recurrence of the breast ptosis, patient dissatisfaction, 15 patients (4.5%) underwent revisional surgery. Conclusion: There are many factors affecting the outcome in breast augmentation. A detailed evaluation of the patients preoperatively, determining the applicability of the wishes and expectations of the patients and planning the operation are the most important factors affecting the outcome.
Keywords: Breast; implants; silicone; mastopexy
ÖZET
Amaç: Meme büyütme operasyonu, tüm dünyada olduğu gibi Türkiye'de de giderek popüler hale gelmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, meme büyütme operasyonlarında komplikasyon oranının azaltılması için alınması gereken önlemleri ortaya koymak ve kliniğimizde elde ettiğimiz sonuçları literatür verileri ile karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2003-2017 yılları arasında kliniğimizde opere edilen 330 izole meme büyütme ve mastopeksi-meme büyütme hastalar geriye dönük olarak gözden geçirildi. Hastaların demografik özellikleri, implant ve uygulanan cerrahi tekniğe ait değişkenler ve komplikasyonlar incelendi. Bulgular: Toplam 330 hastanın, 258'ine (%78,1) sadece büyütme; geriye kalan 72 (%21,9) hastaya ise mastopeksi ve büyütme operasyonu yapıldı. Sekiz hasta (%2,4) sekonder büyütme olgusu idi. Kapsül kontraktürü, rüptür, malpozisyon, pitoz rekürrensi, hasta memnuniyetsizliği gibi komplikasyonlar nedeniyle toplam 15 (%4,5) hasta yeniden opere edildi. Sonuç: Estetik meme cerrahisi operasyonlarında sonucu etkileyen pek çok faktör vardır. Operasyon öncesinde hastaların ayrıntılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmesi, hastaların istek ve beklentilerinin uygulanabilirliğinin saptanması ve buna göre operasyonun planlanması başarıyı etkileyen en önemli faktörlerdendir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Meme; implant; silikon; mastopeksi
Amaç: Meme büyütme operasyonu, tüm dünyada olduğu gibi Türkiye'de de giderek popüler hale gelmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, meme büyütme operasyonlarında komplikasyon oranının azaltılması için alınması gereken önlemleri ortaya koymak ve kliniğimizde elde ettiğimiz sonuçları literatür verileri ile karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2003-2017 yılları arasında kliniğimizde opere edilen 330 izole meme büyütme ve mastopeksi-meme büyütme hastalar geriye dönük olarak gözden geçirildi. Hastaların demografik özellikleri, implant ve uygulanan cerrahi tekniğe ait değişkenler ve komplikasyonlar incelendi. Bulgular: Toplam 330 hastanın, 258'ine (%78,1) sadece büyütme; geriye kalan 72 (%21,9) hastaya ise mastopeksi ve büyütme operasyonu yapıldı. Sekiz hasta (%2,4) sekonder büyütme olgusu idi. Kapsül kontraktürü, rüptür, malpozisyon, pitoz rekürrensi, hasta memnuniyetsizliği gibi komplikasyonlar nedeniyle toplam 15 (%4,5) hasta yeniden opere edildi. Sonuç: Estetik meme cerrahisi operasyonlarında sonucu etkileyen pek çok faktör vardır. Operasyon öncesinde hastaların ayrıntılı bir şekilde değerlendirilmesi, hastaların istek ve beklentilerinin uygulanabilirliğinin saptanması ve buna göre operasyonun planlanması başarıyı etkileyen en önemli faktörlerdendir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Meme; implant; silikon; mastopeksi
REFERANSLAR:
- ISAPS International Study on Aesthetic/Cosmetic procedures performed in 2016. p.2.[Link]
- Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. The evolution of breast implants. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36(1):1-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cronin TD, Brauer RO. Augmentation mammaplasty. Surg Clin North Am. 1971; 51(2):441-52. [Crossref]
- Adams WP Jr. The process of breast augmentation: four steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 122(6):1892-900. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hidalgo DA, Sinno S. Current trends and controversies in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(4):1142-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Doshier LJ, Eagan SL, Shock LA, Henry SL, Colbert SH, Puckett CL. The subtleties of success in simultaneous augmentationmastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(3): 585-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hall-Findlay EJ. A simplified vertical reduction mammaplasty: shortening the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(3):748-59.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Lipworth L, Tarone RE, McLaughlin JK. Breast implants and lymphoma risk: a review of the epidemiologic evidence through 2008. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(3):790-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Adams WP Jr, Small KH. The process of breast augmentation with special focus on patient education, patient selection and implant selection. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42(4):413-26.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(4):567e-83e.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD, Hill LM, Spear SL. Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(4):456-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chong SJ, Deva AK. Understanding the etiology and prevention of capsular contracture: translating science into practice. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42(4):427-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(5):1255-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Friedman T, Davidovitch N, Scheflan M. Comparative double blind clinical study on round versus shaped cohesive gel implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2006;26(5):530-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hedén P, Montemurro P, Adams WP Jr, Germann G, Scheflan M, Maxwell GP. Anatomical and round breast implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(2):263-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Steinbacher DM, Singh N, Katz R, Khalifeh M. Augmentation-mastopexy using an autologous parenchymal sling. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34(5):664-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(1 Suppl):12S-7S. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Danino AM, Basmacioglu P, Saito S, Rocher F, Blanchet-Bardon C, Revol M, et al. Comparison of the capsular response to the Biocell RTV and Mentor 1600 Siltex breast implant surface texturing: a scanning electron microscope study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108(7):2047-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cunningham B. The mentor core study on silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7 Suppl 1):19S-29S.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP; Style 410 U.S. Core Clinical Study Group. Style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7 Suppl 1):40S-8S. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gonzales-Ulloa M. Correction of hypotrophy of the breast by exogenous material. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1960;25(1):15-26. [Crossref]
- Regnault P. The hypoplastic and ptotic breast: a combined operation with prosthetic augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1966;37(1): 31-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Corduff N, Taylor GI. Rotation mastopexy: an anatomical approach. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33(3):377-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Spear SL, Boehmler JH 4th, Clemens MW. Augmentation/mastopexy: a 3-year review of a single surgeon?s practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(7 Suppl):136S-47S. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Auersvald A, Auersvald LA. Breast augmentation and mastopexy using a pectoral muscle loop. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35(3):333-40.[Crossref] [PubMed]
- Tebbetts JB, Adams WP. Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(7):2005-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Migliori F. ?Upside-down? augmentation mastopexy. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35(4): 593-600. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Calobrace MB. Teaching breast augmentation: a focus on critical intraoperative techniques and decision making to maximize results and minimize revisions. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42(4):493-504. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rohrich RJ, Gosman AA, Brown SA, Reisch J. Mastopexy preferences: a survey of boardcertified plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(7):1631-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Brown MH, Shenker R, Silver SA. Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(3):768-79. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hedén P, Bronz G, Elberg JJ, Deraemaecker R, Murphy DK, Slicton A, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of style 410 highly cohesive silicone breast implants. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33(3):430-6. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 formstable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(6):709-17. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hedén P, Boné B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS. Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(6):1281-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: İşlem Listesi