Complications Following Subpectoral Versus Prepectoral Breast Augmentation: A Meta-analysis
Subpectoral and prepectoral planes have commonly been used in implant-based breast augmentation. The effect of implant plane on complication rate was still unclear. This meta-analysis demonstrated current evidence with regard to comparison of complication rates between subpectoral and prepectoral breast augmentation.
Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched to December 2018. The results of selected studies were meta-analyzed to obtain a pooled odds ratio of the effect of subpectoral versus prepectoral breast augmentation on rates of complications.
There were significantly lower rates of capsular contracture and hematoma but higher rates of implant displacement and animation deformity in the subpectoral group compared with the prepectoral group. There was no significant difference with regard to rates of reoperation, seroma, rippling, infection and implant rupture between these two groups.
Subpectoral and subglandular breast augmentations both have their merits and demerits with regard to complications. The pros and cons of each procedure should be fully explained to patients and selection of implant plane should be considered more comprehensively.
Level of Evidence III
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.
KeywordsSubpectoral Prepectoral Breast augmentation Complication
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. No funding was aided for this study.
All analyses were based on previous published studies thus ethical approval is unnecessary.
This study was based on previous published studies that informed consent was unnecessary.
- 1.Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2005) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:2005–2016Google Scholar
- 4.Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB et al (2013) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000435317.76381.68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Shi H, Cao C, Li X et al (2015) A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Exp Med 8:18737–18743Google Scholar
- 12.Seify H, Sullivan K, Hester TR (2005) Preliminary (3 years) experience with smooth wall silicone gel implants for primary breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 54:231–235 (discussion 235) Google Scholar
- 20.Yalanis GC, Liu EW, Cheng HT (2015) Efficacy and safety of povidone-iodine irrigation in reducing the risk of capsular contracture in aesthetic breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:687–698. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Wong CH, Samuel M, Tan BK et al (2006) Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1224–1236. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000237013.50283.d2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Handel N, Cordray T, Gutierrez J et al (2006) A long-term study of outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:757–767. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000201457.00772.1d (discussion 768–772) CrossRefGoogle Scholar