Advertisement

Quantitative Appraisal Through MRI of Breast Tissue Thickness and Implant Projection After Breast Augmentation with High- and Extra-High-Profile Round Implants

  • Antonio Carlos AbramoEmail author
  • Thiago Walmsley Lucena
  • Marcio Scartozzoni
Original Article Breast Surgery
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Changes in breast tissue thickness and in implant projection 5 years after augmentation with high- and extra-high-profile round implants were measured through MRI with a DICOM standard viewer.

Methods

Twenty-four females with small-volume breast asymmetry without hypertrophy or ptosis underwent subfascial breast augmentation for cosmetic purposes, by using micro-textured soft cohesive silicone gel-filled round implants, from a single manufacturer. MRI measured the linear antero-posterior dimension of breast tissue thickness and projection of the implants. Statistical analysis of data was performed by Pearson correlation coefficient, line graph, and scatter diagram.

Results

The “r” of Pearson for right and left breasts indicated a significant correlation between the breast tissue thickness before and 5 years after augmentation. Closeness of the lines displayed in the line graph indicated strong linear positive correlation between the breast tissue thicknesses. The “r” values for projection of right and left implants indicated a significant correlation between the projection standardized by the manufacturer and that encountered 5 years after augmentation with high- and extra-high-profile round implants. A scatter diagram of data indicated a strong positive correlation between implant projection standardized by the manufacturer and that encountered 5 years after augmentation, on both breasts.

Conclusion

Soft cohesive silicone gel-filled high- and extra-high-profile round implants supported breast tissue compressing without significant loss of the implant projection. Despite the consistency of the soft cohesive silicone gel, the implant softness and flexibility were preserved, resulting in low-pressure gradient over the mammary parenchyma without significant changes of the breast tissue thickness.

EBM Level 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

Mammary parenchyma Breast Breast implants Implant profile Nipples Magnetic resonance imaging 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

No financial support or benefits have been received by the author or any co-author to accomplish this manuscript.

Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in this study involving humans participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the ACA - Institute of Assistance in Plastic Surgery of São Paulo research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and its latter amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All patients provided informed consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Tebbets JB, Teitelbaum S (2010) High- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2150–2159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Largent JA, Reisman NR, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Jewell ML (2013) Clinical trial outcomes of high- and extra-high-profile breast implants. Aesth Surg J 33(4):529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nahabedian MY (2010) Discussion: high- and extra-high-projection breast implants: potential consequences for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2165–2167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maxwell GP, Gabriel A (2014) The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(1 Suppl):12S–17SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panettiere P, Marchetti L, Accorsi D (2007) Soft cohesive silicone gel breast prosthesis: a comparative prospective study of aesthetic results versus lower cohesivity silicone gel prosthesis. J Plast Reconstr Surg 60:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calobrace MB, Capizzi PJ (2014) The biology and evolution of cohesive gel and shaped implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(1 Suppl):6S–11SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abramo AC, Scartozzoni M, Lucena TW, Sgarbi R (2019) High- and extra-high-profile round implants in breast augmentation: guidelines to prevent rippling and implant edge visibility. Aesth Plast Surg 43:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giess CS, Yeh ED, Raza S, Birdwell RL (2014) Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging: normal patterns, diagnostic challenges, and potential for false-positive and false-negative interpretation. RadioGraphics 34(1):234–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haak D, Page C-E, Deserno TM (2016) A survey of DICOM viewer software to integrate clinical research and medical imaging. J Digit Imaging 29(2):206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cai Y, See S (2014) Medixant: RadiAnt DICOM viewer. Technology and engineering. University of North Carolina, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hollander M, Wolfe DA, Chicken E (2013) Nonparametric statistical methods, 3rd edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans TS, Lambiotte R (2010) Line graphs of weighted networks for overlapping communities. Eur Phys J 77:265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friendly M, Denis D (2005) The early origins and development of the scatterplot. J Hist Behav Sci 41(2):103–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Somogyi RB, Stavrou D, Southwick G (2015) Correction of small volume breast asymmetry using deep parenchymal resection and identical silicone implants: an early experience. Aesthet Surg J 35(4):394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wan D, Rohrich RJ (2017) Making sense of implant “profile” in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 5(5):e1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jewell ML, Bengtson BP, Smither K, Nuti G, Perry TA (2019) Physical properties of silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J 39(3):264–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown MH, Shenker R, Samuel A, Silver SA (2005) Cohesive silicone gel breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 116(3):768–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Carlos Abramo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thiago Walmsley Lucena
    • 1
  • Marcio Scartozzoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Post-Graduate Course of Plastic Surgery of the ACA - Institute of Assistance in Plastic Surgery of São Paulo, Division of Plastic Surgery at General Hospital São RafaelBrazilian Society of Plastic Surgery and Brazilian Medical AssociationSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations