"Intramuscular Breast Augmentation in Secondary Mastopexy Augmentation."

BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation with implants is one of the most performed aesthetic surgical procedures performed worldwide. We describe this new option for breast implant secondary procedures, the intra pectoralis major pocket, as a feasible and reproducible surgical technique. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients who underwent revision augmentation or mastopexy augmentation procedure between 2005 and 2022 by the senior author. The intramuscular pocket is dissected between the pectoral muscle fascicles where almost is not bleeding. RESULTS: Patients were followed for an average of 21.5 months. A total of 319 patients underwent revisionary breast augmentation/mastopexies performed by the senior author. Indications for reoperation were based both on specific patient dissatisfaction with their original surgery and surgeon's physical examination and assessment. In 196 cases we performed the intramuscular pocket. None of the intramuscular had capsular contracture or animation deformity in the follow up period. CONCLUSIONS: The intramuscular technique is a valuable and safe technique for secondary breast augmentation.

Subfascial versus Subglandular Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Prospective Evaluation Considering a 5-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Subfascial breast augmentation is becoming popular because of a better understanding of breast anatomy. However, because the subglandular approach is also another popular method, it is critical to assess the influence of the superficial fascia of the pectoralis major muscle on the subfascial and subglandular pockets to determine if one method is superior to another. This study investigated whether there are clinical/radiological differences between subfascial and subglandular pockets following primary breast augmentation. METHODS: Twenty patients were recruited, and each was randomly sorted to the subfascial and/or subglandular pocket per breast. Both patients and surgeons were blinded. Differences were evaluated through five independent surgeons and by magnetic resonance imaging scans. Subsequently, 1-year and 5-year follow-ups were conducted. RESULTS: The results of the 5-year follow-up considering the aesthetics of the breast contour were significantly different between groups, with more good and excellent evaluations in the subfascial group. Regarding breast shape, there were also statistical differences, also with more good and excellent evaluations in the subfascial group. For breast consistency, subglandular had 84.20 percent of patients classified into Baker I and II, whereas subfascial had 100 percent. Magnetic resonance imaging scans showed a smaller implant base in the subglandular pockets, which was a significant result. There were no significant differences in implant projection. Comparison of the number of folds revealed significant differences between groups, with more folds in the subglandular group. CONCLUSION: Statistical differences between methods were found regarding breast shape and contour, capsular contracture, implant base, and the number of folds, showing that subfascial breast augmentation is superior to subglandular breast augmentation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.