Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 59–69 | Cite as

Secondary Breast Augmentation: Is There a Trend for Bigger Implants?

  • Paolo MontemurroEmail author
  • Sebastian Fischer
  • Stephan Hager
  • Per Hedén
Original Article Breast Surgery
  • 105 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Despite novel assessment tools and 3D simulation, patient’s desire for implant size change is one of the most common reasons for revision surgery after primary breast augmentation. In this study, we analysed outcomes and predictive indicators for revision surgeries in a cohort of patients operated on by a single surgeon.

Patients and Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent revision augmentation surgery between 2013 and 2017 by the first author were included in this study. Besides review of medical records, subgroups based on the indication for revision surgery were compared and statistically analysed.

Results

A total of 110 patients were included in this study. Revision surgery was performed 97.2 months on average after primary augmentation. Eighty-six per cent of patients received larger implants. Indications for revision surgery and associated subgroups were: (1) wish for bigger implants (38%), (2) complication + wish for bigger implants (26%), (3) complication (29%), (4) complication + wish for smaller implants (3%) and (5) wish for smaller implants (3%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients who underwent revision surgery for bigger implants were significantly younger compared to patients who suffered a complication or desired smaller implants. Time to secondary augmentation was significantly shorter in case of wish for size change compared to complications as reason for revision surgery. Implant sizes differed significantly in patients where volume change was the sole indication for surgery compared to revisions performed due to complications.

Conclusion

In our cohort of patients, almost all patients who underwent revision surgery after primary breast augmentation received bigger implants. Patients who specifically wished for size change were younger, asked for surgery earlier and received larger volumes compared to patients who underwent revision surgery for other reasons.

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.

Keywords

Breast augmentation Breast implantation Secondary breast augmentation Complications 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Montemurro is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, Calif.). Dr. Fischer has no disclosures. Dr. Hager has no disclosures. Dr. Hedén is a consultant and speaker for Allergan, Inc. (Irvine, Calif.) and an unpaid consultant for Canfield Scientific (Fairfield, N.J.).

References

  1. 1.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2017) Complete plastic surgeons statistics reportGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen B, Hawtof D, Alani H et al (1989) The diagnosis of ruptured breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 84(6):903–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hammond DC, Canady JW, Love TR et al (2017) Mentor contour profile gel implants: clinical outcomes at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):1142–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donfrancesco A, Montemurro P, Heden P (2013) Three-dimensional simulated images in breast augmentation surgery: an investigation of patients’ satisfaction and the correlation between prediction and actual outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(4):810–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montemurro P, Cheema M, Heden P et al (2017) Autologous collagen matrix (ACM): lower pole support with a supero-anterior capsular flap in secondary subpectoral breast augmentation. Aesth Surg J 37(5):540–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA et al (2012) Mentor contour profile gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 129(6):1381–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK et al (2012) Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 32(6):709–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP et al (2015) Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J 35(2):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hidalgo DA, Sinno S (2016) Current trends and controversies in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 137(4):1142–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown T (2013) Patient expectations after breast augmentation: the imperative to audit your sizing system. Aesthet Plast Surg 37(6):1134–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gladilin E, Gabrielova B, Montemurro P et al (2011) Customized planning of augmentation mammaplasty with silicon implants using three-dimensional optical body scans and biomechanical modeling of soft tissue outcome. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(4):494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dionyssiou DD, Demiri EC, Davison JA (2005) A simple method for determining the breast implant size in augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 29(6):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pereira LH, Sterodimas A (2007) Definite size of the augmented breast could be up to a breast cup smaller than the early postoperative size. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(6):759CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AkademiklinikenStockholmSweden
  2. 2.BG Clinic LudwigshafenHeidelberg UniversityLudwigshafen am RheinGermany

Personalised recommendations