Periareolar Subfascial Breast Augmentation: Comparison with Submuscular and Dual Plane Breast Augmentation

PURPOSE: Subfascial augmentation mammaplasty was introduced by Dr. Graf in 2000. Subfascial placement of breast implants for augmentation was advocated as an option that has some of the advantages of both the subpectoral and subglandular placement while minimizing the disadvantages of each. The clinical experiences of 23 breast augmentations in the subfascial placement are reported. The indications for this technique are proposed. The incidence of complications is described from clinical experiences and compared with that of other methods. METHODS: From January of 2004 through December of 2005, 23 patients underwent periareolar subfascial augmentation mammaplasty. The mean postoperative follow-up time was 8 months. RESULTS: In comparing the results of the subpectoral augmentation group(57 patients) with those of the dual plane(124 patients) and subfascial groups(23 patients), the total rate of complications didn't represented the significant difference. The benefits of this technique include avoiding hematoma(as seen in the dual plane) and muscle action(in the subpectoral), and minimizing postoperative chest pain(inherent to subpectoral), and the ability to correct ptosis. And also this subfascial technique can be used for changing the plane from submuscular to subfascial in case of the reoperations. CONCLUSION: We're thinking that the periareolar subfascial augmentation mammaplasty would be the very useful tool for the primary and secondary breast augmentations.

Periareolar Subfascial Breast Augmentation: Comparison with Submuscular and Dual Plane Breast Augmentation

PURPOSE: Subfascial augmentation mammaplasty was introduced by Dr. Graf in 2000. Subfascial placement of breast implants for augmentation was advocated as an option that has some of the advantages of both the subpectoral and subglandular placement while minimizing the disadvantages of each. The clinical experiences of 23 breast augmentations in the subfascial placement are reported. The indications for this technique are proposed. The incidence of complications is described from clinical experiences and compared with that of other methods. METHODS: From January of 2004 through December of 2005, 23 patients underwent periareolar subfascial augmentation mammaplasty. The mean postoperative follow-up time was 8 months. RESULTS: In comparing the results of the subpectoral augmentation group(57 patients) with those of the dual plane(124 patients) and subfascial groups(23 patients), the total rate of complications didn't represented the significant difference. The benefits of this technique include avoiding hematoma(as seen in the dual plane) and muscle action(in the subpectoral), and minimizing postoperative chest pain(inherent to subpectoral), and the ability to correct ptosis. And also this subfascial technique can be used for changing the plane from submuscular to subfascial in case of the reoperations. CONCLUSION: We're thinking that the periareolar subfascial augmentation mammaplasty would be the very useful tool for the primary and secondary breast augmentations.

Simultaneous Periareolar Augmentation Mastopexy: Dual Plane Versus Subfascial Plane

PURPOSE: The major drawback of submuscular augmentation of the ptotic breast is a "double-bubble" deformity. If a traditional mastopexy is added to correct the ptosis, there would be additional scars. This article describes simultaneous periareolar mastopexy with dual plane or subfascial breast augmentations. METHODS: A series of 81 patients with grade I or II ptosis underwent the procedure from 1999 to 2005. Out of these, dual plane augmentation was done in 71 cases and subfascial plane in 10. After periareolar skin excision, an incision is made perpendicularly down to the fascia of pectoralis. At the lower pole, all breast implants are inserted into the subfascial plane. In case of upper pole thickness of above 20mm, we inserted the implant into the subfascial plane, whereas below 20mm, we inserted that into the submuscular plane. RESULTS: No major complications were noted and patients' satisfactory score was high. This technique avoids the "double-bubble" deformity and leaves a minimal periareolar scar. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous periareolar mastopexy/ breast augmentation is useful for correction of the ptotic breast, increasing the volume of breast and providing the natural breast shape with minimal scars. We consider that subfascial plane augmentation with periareolar mastopexy to be an alternative for cases with breast upper pole thickness of at least above 20mm.

Simultaneous Periareolar Augmentation Mastopexy: Dual Plane Versus Subfascial Plane

PURPOSE: The major drawback of submuscular augmentation of the ptotic breast is a "double-bubble" deformity. If a traditional mastopexy is added to correct the ptosis, there would be additional scars. This article describes simultaneous periareolar mastopexy with dual plane or subfascial breast augmentations. METHODS: A series of 81 patients with grade I or II ptosis underwent the procedure from 1999 to 2005. Out of these, dual plane augmentation was done in 71 cases and subfascial plane in 10. After periareolar skin excision, an incision is made perpendicularly down to the fascia of pectoralis. At the lower pole, all breast implants are inserted into the subfascial plane. In case of upper pole thickness of above 20mm, we inserted the implant into the subfascial plane, whereas below 20mm, we inserted that into the submuscular plane. RESULTS: No major complications were noted and patients' satisfactory score was high. This technique avoids the "double-bubble" deformity and leaves a minimal periareolar scar. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous periareolar mastopexy/ breast augmentation is useful for correction of the ptotic breast, increasing the volume of breast and providing the natural breast shape with minimal scars. We consider that subfascial plane augmentation with periareolar mastopexy to be an alternative for cases with breast upper pole thickness of at least above 20mm.