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....
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
2016-09-01
|
| Series: | Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.rbcp.org.br/export-pdf/1760/en_v31n3a07.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849700480825950208 |
|---|---|
| author | Maria Claudia Sanchez Giometti Christiane Steponovicius Sobral Joel Abdala Daniel Teixeira Gomes |
| author_facet | Maria Claudia Sanchez Giometti Christiane Steponovicius Sobral Joel Abdala Daniel Teixeira Gomes |
| author_sort | Maria Claudia Sanchez Giometti |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-dfe2ac78a86b491a8653c1b0226dae97 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 1983-5175 2177-1235 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-09-01 |
| publisher | Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica |
| spelling | doaj-art-dfe2ac78a86b491a8653c1b0226dae972025-08-20T03:18:15ZengThieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica1983-51752177-12352016-09-01310332833810.5935/2177-1235.2016RBCP0055Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentationMaria Claudia Sanchez Giometti0Christiane Steponovicius Sobral1Joel Abdala2Daniel Teixeira Gomes3Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, São Paulo, SP, BrazilSociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, São Paulo, SP, BrazilSociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, São Paulo, SP, BrazilHospital dos Defeitos da Face, Cruz Vermelha Brasileira, São Paulo, SP, BrazilINTRODUCTION: 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.http://www.rbcp.org.br/export-pdf/1760/en_v31n3a07.pdfbreast implantmammoplastycontractureround blockbreast |
| spellingShingle | Maria Claudia Sanchez Giometti Christiane Steponovicius Sobral Joel Abdala Daniel Teixeira Gomes Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica breast implant mammoplasty contracture round block breast |
| title | Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation |
| title_full | Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation |
| title_short | Comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation |
| title_sort | comparison of anatomic and round implants using periareolar access in primary breast augmentation |
| topic | breast implant mammoplasty contracture round block breast |
| url | http://www.rbcp.org.br/export-pdf/1760/en_v31n3a07.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mariaclaudiasanchezgiometti comparisonofanatomicandroundimplantsusingperiareolaraccessinprimarybreastaugmentation AT christianesteponoviciussobral comparisonofanatomicandroundimplantsusingperiareolaraccessinprimarybreastaugmentation AT joelabdala comparisonofanatomicandroundimplantsusingperiareolaraccessinprimarybreastaugmentation AT danielteixeiragomes comparisonofanatomicandroundimplantsusingperiareolaraccessinprimarybreastaugmentation |