Page 28 - Read Online

Topic: Aesthetic Surgery of the Breast

A long term review of augmentation

mastopexy in muscle splitting biplane

Umar Daraz Khan

Aesthetic Plastic Surgeon, Reshape House, West Malling, Kent ME19 6QR, UK.
Address for correspondence: Dr. Umar Daraz Khan, Aesthetic Plastic Surgeon, Reshape House, 2-4 High Street, West Malling, Kent ME19 6QR,
UK. E-mail: Mrumarkhan@aol.com

ABSTRACT
Aim: Simultaneous or single stage mastopexy with augmentation is challenging, unique and commonly
performed by a plastic surgeon. In this procedure pocket for implant placement, marking for envelope
reduction and type of implants used can affect the outcome of the procedure. Muscle splitting pocket
for mastopexy is a plane described by the author for implant placement with a short term follow up.
The use and outcome of the technique is presented with a larger series and a long term follows up
to evaluate the efficacy of the procedure. Methods: Retrospective data was collected. Augmentation
was performed using muscle splitting technique and periareolar, vertical scar and wise pattern were
used for skin reduction and mastopexy. A single surgeon performed all procedures. Results: In total 108
patients mastopexy with augmentation in muscle splitting technique. The mean age of the patient was
32.2 years (range: 18-67 years) with an average follow up of 4.5 years (range: 3 months to 10 years). All
patients had round textured cohesive gel silicone implants with a mean size of 308 cc (range: 200-555 cc).
Wound infection was seen in 4 (3.7%), wound breakdown in 7 (6.5%) patients. Drains were used in 25
(23.1%). All patients were treated as day cases and revision surgery was performed in 12 (11.1%). There
was no hematoma, deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or nipple areolar complex in the series. Conclusion:
Simultaneous augmentation mastopexy in muscle splitting pocket can be performed with good aesthetic
results along with an acceptable revision rate.

Key words:
Augmentation mastopexy; muscle splitting mastopexy; muscle splitting augmentation; submuscular
augmentation mammoplasty

INTRODUCTION modifications. The two procedures are totally independent
[6]
of each other. [7,8] A low complication rate is reported when
Augmentation mammoplasty for volume enhancement and each component performed separately.However when these

mastopexy for ptosis correction is commonly performed as two components are done as a simultaneous procedure,
a simultaneous procedure by aesthetic plastic surgeons. In it was considered very challenging with a warning to
this procedure, envelope markings, type of implants and the surgeons. A revision rate of 16.7% was reported when
[9]
pocket for implant placement can affect the outcome the the operation was performed as a single stage procedure
result. Breast implants can be placed in front or behind the
[1]
[2]
pectoralis muscle. Skin reduction is commonly performed This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
[4]
[5]
[3]
using periareolar, wise pattern, vertical scar or its Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix,
tweak and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited
Access this article online and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Quick Response Code:
Website: For reprints contact: service@oaepublish.com
http://par.oaepublish.com/
How to cite this article: Khan UD. A long term review of
augmentation mastopexy in muscle splitting biplane. Plast Aesthet
DOI: Res 2016;3:21-5.
10.20517/2347-9264.2015.55
Received: 08-05-2015; Accepted: 11-11-2015
© 2016 Plastic and Aesthetic Research | Published by OAE Publishing Inc. 21