Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation
INTRODUCTION: Breast augmentation requires planning with objective and rigorous criteria, which were standardized by the High Five system of Tebbetts. There are a many possible combinations based on access route, implant plane, and type of implant, enabling the best outcome for each patient....
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica
2016-09-01
|
| Series: | Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.rbcp.org.br/export-pdf/1760/en_v31n3a07.pdf |
| Summary: | INTRODUCTION: Breast augmentation requires planning with objective and rigorous criteria, which were standardized by the High Five system of Tebbetts. There are a many possible combinations based on access route, implant plane, and type of implant, enabling the best outcome for each patient.
METHOD: Of 100 patients studied, 30 received anatomic implants and 70 received round implants in the retromuscular or subglandular position, with or without round block technique. All cases used periareolar access. Preoperative evaluation was performed according to the High Five system.
RESULTS: The round block technique was used more often with anatomic implants (43%). The subglandular plane was most commonly used (76.6%). Of 30 anatomic implants, 86.7% were placed in the subglandular plane. Of 70 round implants, 71.4% were placed in the subglandular plane. There were 4 cases of grade III and IV capsular contracture, which is more common with the use of round implants. The rate of rotation among anatomic implants was 10%, with 3 cases.
CONCLUSION: There was a low complication rate, in accordance with published data. Periareolar access provided good results in all cases. The patient should be informed about the possibility of rotation with use of anatomic implants. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1983-5175 2177-1235 |