Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Breast augmentation surgery using an inframammary fold incision in Southeast Asian women: Patient-reported outcomes

  • Received : 2017.12.22
  • Accepted : 2018.04.25
  • Published : 2018.07.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background This analysis presents patient-reported outcomes of breast augmentation procedures performed in Singapore using an inframammary fold incision and the "5 Ps" best practice principles for breast augmentation. These data are the first of their kind in Southeast Asian patients. Methods Through a retrospective chart review, patients who underwent primary breast augmentation with anatomical form-stable silicone gel breast implants using an inframammary fold incision were followed for ${\geq}6$ months postoperatively. The BREAST-Q Augmentation Module (scores standardized to 0 [worst] - 100 [best]) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS; 1 [normal skin] to 10 [worst scar imaginable]) were administered. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Patient-reported events were collected. Results Twenty-two Southeast Asian patients (mean age, 35.1 years) completed ${\geq}1$ postoperative BREAST-Q and POSAS assessment and were assessed 11 months to 5.5 years postoperatively. The mean postoperative BREAST-Q satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial well-being scores were 69.2 and 84.0, respectively. The mean POSAS score for their overall opinion of the scar was 4.2; the mean scores for all scar characteristics ranged from 1.2 to 4.2. Over 90% of patients (20/22) said that they would recommend the procedure. Patient complaints following surgery included anisomastia (possibly pre-existing; n=2), sensory loss at the nipple (n=2) or around the nipple (n=3), scarring (n=4), and slight capsular contracture (n=1). No patients required reoperation. Conclusions Southeast Asian patients reported high long-term satisfaction scores on the BREAST-Q scale and with their scar characteristics following breast augmentation using an inframammary fold incision, and nearly all said they would recommend this procedure. No reoperations were necessary in patients assessed for up to 5.5 years postoperatively.

Keywords

References

  1. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2011 [Internet]. Hanover, NH; c2012 [cited Oct 28, 2016]. Available from https://www.isaps.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/ISAPS-Results-Procedures-2011-1. pdf.
  2. International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2015 [Internet]. Hanover, NH; c2016 [cited Oct 28, 2016]. Available from https://www.isaps.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/2016-ISAPS-Results-1.pdf.
  3. Zelken J, Cheng MH. Asian breast augmentation: a system- atic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3:e555. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000528
  4. Cheng MH, Huang JJ. Augmentation mammaplasty in Asian women. Semin Plast Surg 2009;23:48-54. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1111101
  5. Adams WP Jr, Small KH. The process of breast augmenta- tion with special focus on patient education, patient selec- tion and implant selection. Clin Plast Surg 2015;42:413-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.001
  6. Heden P, Brown MH, Luan J, et al. Delphi study consensus recommendations: patient selection and preoperative plan- ning measurements for Natrelle 410. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015;3:e556. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000510
  7. Kim YJ, Kim YW, Cheon YW. Prevention of implant malpo- sition in inframammary augmentation mammaplasty. Arch Plast Surg 2014;41:407-13. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.4.407
  8. Schwartz MR. Algorithm and techniques for using Sientra’s silicone gel shaped implants in primary and revision breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014;134(1 Suppl):18S- 27S. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000353
  9. Randquist C. My confession after 14 years of experience with form stable high cohesive silicone gel implants. Can J Plast Surg 2010;18:116. https://doi.org/10.1177/229255031001800301
  10. Randquist C, Gribbe O. Highly cohesive textured form stable gel implants: principles and technique. In: Hall-Findlay EJ, Evans GR, Kim KK, editors. Aesthetic and reconstructive surgery of the breast. New York: Saunders Elsevier; 2010. p. 339-55.
  11. Atiyeh BS, Dibo SA, Nader M, et al. Preoperative assessment tool for the planning of inframammary incision and implant profile in breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2014;38:878-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0381-8
  12. Pusic AL, Reavey PL, Klassen AF, et al. Measuring patient outcomes in breast augmentation: introducing the BREAST-Q augmentation module. Clin Plast Surg 2009;36:23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2008.07.005
  13. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. A closer look at the $BREAST-Q^{(C)}$. Clin Plast Surg 2013;40:287-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.002
  14. Alderman AK, Bauer J, Fardo D, et al. Understanding the effect of breast augmentation on quality of life: prospective analysis using the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133:787-95.
  15. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. The scale [Internet]. c2017 [cited Apr 27, 2017]. Available from http://www.posas.org/the-posas/the-scale/.
  16. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, et al. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 1990;11:256-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-199005000-00014
  17. Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, et al. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty 2010;10:e43.
  18. Beausang E, Floyd H, Dunn KW, et al. A new quantitative scale for clinical scar assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102:1954-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199811000-00022
  19. Anderson RC, Cunningham B, Tafesse E, et al. Validation of the Breast Evaluation Questionnaire for use with breast sur- gery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006;118:597-602. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000233040.82665.15
  20. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, et al. Normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q: augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017;139:846-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003186
  21. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, et al. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009-2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016;69:149-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013
  22. Alderman A, Pusic A, Murphy DK. Prospective analysis of primary breast augmentation on body image using the BREAST-Q: results from a nationwide study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137:954e-960e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000002183
  23. Sarwer DB, LaRossa D, Bartlett SP, et al. Body image con- cerns of breast augmentation patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000066005.07796.51
  24. Bengtson BP. The Natrelle 401 highly cohesive form-stable gel implant for primary breast augmentation. In: Spear SL, Willey SC, Robb GL, et al., editors. Surgery of the breast: principles and art. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2017. p. 1346-65.
  25. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, et al. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study re- sults at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 2012;32:709-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X12452423

Cited by

  1. Examining the Post-operative Well-Being of Women Who Underwent Mammoplasty: A Cross-Sectional Study vol.12, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.645102