Subglandular Breast Augmentation: Submammary Approach

  • T. Roderick HesterJr.

Abstract

Following a decrease as a result of the plethora of negative characterizations of breast implants emanating from the media (and the FDA)1–3 since the late 1980s, the number of women requesting augmentation mammaplasty is again increasing. This renewed interest is based on the fact that the vast majority of patients having this procedure in the past have been satisfied with the outcome4–6 and that results from multiple well-designed studies continue to show no connection between breast implants and systemic illness.7,8 Because only saline filled inflatable implants (which can be inserted through incisions of minimal length) can be used at the present for primary augmentation mammaplasty, interest in application of endoscopic techniques has increased.

Keywords

Assure Polyurethane Pneumothorax Hema Teal 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher JC. Breast implants under siege: An historical commentary. J Long Term Effects Med Implants 1992;1:243.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher JC. What will historians say. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992;90:118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kessler DA.The basis of the FDAs decision on breast implants. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1713.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biggs TM, Cukier J, Worthing LF. Augmentation mammaplasty: A review of 18 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69:445–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Survey from the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, Inc. Arlington Heights, IL.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Handel N, Wellisch D, Silver stein MJ, Jensen JA, Wais-man E. Knowledge, concern, and satisfaction among augmentation mammoplasty patients. Ann Plast Surg 1992; 30:13–20; discussion 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gabriel EH. Risk of connective tissue-diseases and other disorders after breast augmentation. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hochberg MC. The association of augmentation mammaplasty with systemic sclerosis: Results from a multicenter case-control study. Presented at the American College of Rheumatology, October 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P, Waisman JR, Gierson ED, Rosser RJ, Steyskal R, Colburn W. Breast cancer in women after augmentation mammaplasty. Arch Surg 1988;123:681–685.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eclund GW. Mammographie imaging of the aug-mentented breast. Adminis Radiol 1988;12:42.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brody GS, Deapen DM. Breast cancer diagnosis in the augmented breast. Arch Surg 1989;124:256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deapen DM, Brody GS. Augmentation mammaplasty and breast cancer: A 5 year update of the Los Angeles study. Plast Reconst Surg 1992;89:660–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Modan B. Breast augmentation and the subsequent risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1993;328:661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Cholnoky T. Augmentation mammaplasty: Survey of complications in 10,941 patients by 265 surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 1970;45:573.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biggs TM, Cukier J, Worthing LF. Augmentation mammaplasty: A review of 18 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982; 69:445–452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hester TR. The polyurethane-covered mammary prosthesis: Facts and fiction. Perspect Plast Surg 1988;2:135.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hester et al. A five year experience with polyurethane-covered mammary prostheses for the treatment of capsular contracture, primary augmentation, and breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg 1988;15:569.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jarret JR, Cutler RG, Teal TF. Aesthetic refinements is prophylactic mastectomy with submuscular reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1982;69:624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scully SJ. Augmentation mammaplasty without capsular contracture. Ann Plast Surg 1981;6:262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahler D, Hauben DJ. Retromammary versus retropec-toral breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 1982;8:370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Roderick HesterJr.

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations