Abstract
Background
The axillary incision for breast augmentation has been an option for patients and surgeons for more than 30 years now. Controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that reoperations continue to be significant (15–24% at 3 years) independent of incision choice. The misbelief that the transaxillary approach is not adequate for reoperations inhibits patients’ and surgeons’ decisions on what incision is best in each case.
Methods
A retrospective analyses was performed seeking reoperation cases performed from January 2008 to January 2011 that used the same axillary incision as the previous transaxillary augmentation. Data on the cause for the reoperation, time between surgeries, patient age, implant volume, locality of the primary operation, and details regarding the implant type and pocket plane were gathered and analyzed.
Results
A total of 15 patients and 26 breasts needing reoperation were found in this period. The average time between the first surgery and reoperation was 12 months, average patient age was 36 years, and implant volume ranged from 195 to 360 cc, with an average of 283 cc. Six of these patients were previously operated on by the authors and nine were operated on by other surgeons and came to our service seeking revision. Details regarding the implant type and pocket plane are also given. The main causes for reoperation were capsular contracture (26.9%), size change (15.4%), seroma/hematoma (11.5%), infection (11.5%), axillary banding/scarring (11.5%), lower-pole deformity/high-riding (11.5%), asymmetry (7.7%), and rippling/waviness (3.8%).
Conclusion
Transaxillary breast augmentation reoperation is feasible if certain principles are followed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a predictable 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part II. Patient preparation, refined surgical techniques, and instrumentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7):115S–127S (discussion 128S–132S)
Tebbetts JB (2006) Axillary endoscopic breast augmentation: processes derived from a 28-year experience to optimize outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):53S–80S
Munhoz AM, Aldrighi C, Buschpiegel C, Ono C, Montag E, Fells K et al (2005) The feasibility of sentinel lymph node detection in patients with previous transaxillary implant breast augmentation: preliminary results. Aesthet Plast Surg 29(3):163–168
Sado HN, Graf RM, Canan LW, Romano GG, Timi JR, Matias JE et al (2008) Sentinel lymph node detection and evidence of axillary lymphatic integrity after transaxillary breast augmentation: a prospective study using lymphoscintography. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(6):879–888
Mottura AA, Del Castillo R (2007) Transaxillary breast augmentation: two breast cancer patients with successful sentinel lymph node diagnosis. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(5):544–549 (discussion 550–552)
Munhoz AM, Ferreira MC (2007) Implications of transaxillary breast augmentation: lifetime probability for the development of breast cancer and sentinel node mapping interference. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(4):320–321
Spear SL, Clemens MW, Dayan JH (2008) Considerations of previous augmentation in subsequent breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J 28(3):285–293
Adams WP Jr (2008) The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(6):1892–1900
Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH, Clemens MW (2009) Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthet Plast Surg 33(1):44–48
Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, Mahoney A, Thiels C, Nahai FR et al (2011) A 15-year experience with primary breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1300–1310
Mathes SJ (2005) Plastic surgery, vol 6: trunk and lower extremity, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia
McCarthy JG, Galiano RD, Boutros SG, Boutros S (2006) Current therapy in plastic surgery. Saunders, Philadelphia
Tebbetts JB, Adams WP (2006) Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(Suppl):35S–45S
Tebbetts JB (2006) Achieving a zero percent reoperation rate at 3 years in a 50-consecutive-case augmentation mammaplasty premarket approval study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(6):1453–1457
Tebbetts JB (2008) Reoperations as a benchmark: the rhetoric, the logic, and the patient. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(2):662–665
Basile AR, Basile F, Basile AVD (2005) Late infection following breast augmentation with textured silicone gel-filled implants. Aesthet Surg J 25(3):249–254
Yu L, Wang J, Zhang B, Zhu C (2008) Endoscopic transaxillary capsular contracture treatment. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(2):329–332
Hall-Findlay EJ (2011) Breast implant complication review: double capsules and late seromas. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(1):56–66
Spear SL, Carter ME, Ganz JC (2006) The correction of capsular contracture by conversion to “dual-plane” positioning: technique and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):103S–113S (discussion 114S)
Dickinson BP, Handel N (2011) Approaching revisional surgery in augmentation and mastopexy/augmentation patients. Ann Plast Surg. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182110ff3
Song JW, Kim HM, Bellfi LT, Chung KC (2011) The effect of study design biases on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1029–1044
Di Benedetto G, Cecchini S, Grassetti L, Baldassarre S, Valeri G, Leva L et al (2008) Comparative study of breast implant rupture using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with surgical findings. Breast J 14(6):532–537
Paetau AA, McLaughlin SA, McNeil RB, Sternberg E, TerKonda SP, Waldorf JC et al (2010) Capsular contracture and possible implant rupture: is magnetic resonance imaging useful? Plast Reconstr Surg 125(3):830–835
Spear SL, Howard MA, Boehmler JH, Ducic I, Low M, Abbruzzesse MR (2004) The infected or exposed breast implant: management and treatment strategies. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(6):1634–1644
Dowden RV (1997) Subcutaneous fibrous banding after transaxillary subpectoral endoscopic breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 99(1):257
Maximovich SP (1996) Transient axillary-upper inner arm subcutaneous fibrous banding following transaxillary subpectoral endoscopic breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 97(6):1304–1305
Munhoz AM, Fells K, Arruda E, Montag E, Okada A, Aldrighi C et al (2006) Subfascial transaxillary breast augmentation without endoscopic assistance: technical aspects and outcome. Aesthet Plast Surg 30(5):503–512
Spear SL, Seruya M, Clemens MW, Teitelbaum S, Nahabedian MY (2011) Acellular dermal matrix for the treatment and prevention of implant-associated breast deformities. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1047–1058
Spear SL, Parikh PM, Reisin E, Menon NG (2008) Acellular dermis-assisted breast reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 32(3):418–425
Acknowledgement
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Basile, F.V., Basile, A.R. Reoperative Transaxillary Breast Surgery: Using the Axillary Incision to Treat Augmentation-related Complications. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 323–330 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9810-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9810-0