Preservation of breast ligamentous structures in mastopexy: achieving aesthetic excellence with minimal complications
Abstract
Background: Breast ptosis has traditionally been addressed through mastopexy techniques, but there is an increasing focus on preserving breast anatomy to minimize complications. This includes conserving critical ligamentous and fascial structures, considering that traditional techniques may lead to loss of support and adverse outcomes.
Objective: The study aims to introduce a novel mastopexy technique that prioritizes ligament preservation, with the option to include breast implants, emphasizing patient safety and exceptional aesthetic outcomes.
Design: The study design included a descriptive statistical analysis of a novel mastopexy technique applied to 138 patients with a minimum 1-year follow up, performed by a single surgeon in San José, Costa Rica, from August 2020 to September 2022. Preoperative measurements, breast implant data, and postoperative outcomes were described.
Results: A total of 138 patients who underwent preservation mastopexy were analyzed. The median age was 39 years (interquartile range [IQR] 33 – 45) with a 28-month median follow-up. Preoperative measurements included a median nipple-to-inframammary fold distance of 9.5 cm (IQR 8 – 11) and a base diameter of 10.5 cm (IQR 10 – 11). Major complications included one readmission for hematoma drainage (0.7%), no major flap or nipple loss, and minor issues involving dog ears (1.4%) and hypertrophic scars (1.4%) requiring revisions. No seroma or implant-related complications were reported.
Discussion: This study’s innovative mastopexy technique prioritizing breast ligament preservation, with or without adjunctive implants, achieved excellent aesthetics and low complications. This approach, aligned with personalized breast surgery principles, demonstrates the significance of preserving ligamentous support and natural breast architecture. Safety concerns were effectively addressed, emphasizing the technique’s ability to reduce adverse events, substantiated by statistical evidence and earlier studies.
Conclusions: This study demonstrates a low complication rate and favorable aesthetic outcomes with a novel mastopexy technique that prioritizes breast ligament preservation. It utilizes breast implants when needed as an addendum to preexisting breast tissue, basing its selection on objective measurements and overall body proportions.
Downloads
References
2. Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1976 Apr; 3(2): 193–203. doi: 10.1016/S0094-1298(20)30220-0
3. Rehnke RD, Groening RM, Van Buskirk ER, Clarke JM. Anatomy of the superficial fascia system of the breast: a comprehensive theory of breast fascial anatomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018 Nov; 142(5): 1135–44. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004948
4. Venkataram A, Lahar N, Adams WP. Enhancing patient outcomes in aesthetic breast implant procedures using proven antimicrobial breast pocket irrigations: a 20-year follow-up. Aesthet Surg J 2023 Jan 9; 43(1): 66–73. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjac238
5. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP. Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116(7): 2005–16. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000191163.19379.63
6. Ribeiro L, Accorsi A, Buss A, Marcal-Pessoa M. Creation and evolution of 30 years of the inferior pedicle in reduction mammaplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110(3): 960–70. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000019879.75710.7C
7. Spear SL, Pelletiere CV, Menon N. One-stage augmentation combined with mastopexy: aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004 Sep-Oct; 28(5): 259–67. doi: 10.1007/s00266-004-0032-6
8. van Deventer PV, Graewe FR, Würinger E. Improving the longevity and results of mastopexy and breast reduction procedures: reconstructing an internal breast support system with biocompatible mesh to replace the supporting function of the ligamentous suspension. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012 Jun; 36(3): 578–89. doi: 10.1007/s00266-011-9845-2
9. Wueringer E, Tschabitscher M. New aspects of the topographical anatomy of the mammary gland regarding its neurovascular supply along a regular ligamentous suspension. Eur J Morphol 2002; 40: 181–9. doi: 10.1076/ejom.40.3.181.16688
10. Duncan AM, Al Youha S, Joukhadar N, Konder R, Stecco C, Wheelock ME. Anatomy of the breast fascial system: a systematic review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022 Jan 1; 149(1): 28–40. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008671
11. Gaskin KM, Peoples GE, McGhee DE. The attachments of the breast to the chest wall: a dissection study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020 Jul; 146(1): 11e–22e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006954
12. Lacob S, Gigliofiorito P, Pendolino AL, Persichetti P. Understanding the fascial supporting network of the breast: key ligamentous structures in breast augmentation and a proposed system of nomenclature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014 Aug; 134(2): 325e–6e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000397
13. Pferdehirt R, Nahabedian MY. Finesse in mastopexy and augmentation mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021 Sep 1; 148(3): 451e–61e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000008303
14. Spring MA, Hartmann EC, Stevens WG. Strategies and challenges in simultaneous augmentation mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg 2015 Oct; 42(4): 505–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.008
15. Kim MS, Sbalchiero JC, Reece GP, Miller MJ, Beahm EK, Markey MK. Assessment of breast aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008 Apr; 121(4): 186e–94e. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000304593.74672.b8
16. Stevens WG, Calobrace MB, Alizadeh K, Zeidler KR, Harrington JL, d’Incelli RC. Ten-year core study data for Sientra’s food and drug administration-approved round and shaped breast implants with cohesive silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018 Apr; 141(4S Sientra Shaped and Round Cohesive Gel Implants): 7S–19S. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004350
17. Xue AS, Dayan E, Rohrich RJ. Achieving predictability in augmentation mastopexy: an update. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020 Sep 21; 8(9): e2784. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002784
18. Khavanin N, Jordan SW, Rambachan A, et al. A systematic review of single-stage augmentation-mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134: 922–31. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000582
19. Spear S. Augmentation/mastopexy: ‘surgeon, beware’. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112: 905–6. doi: 10.1097/01.PRS.0000072257.66189.3E
20. Hall-Findlay EJ. A simplified vertical reduction mammaplasty: shortening the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104(3): 748–59. doi: 10.1097/00006534-199909010-00020
21. Ding W, Ding Y, Jiang H. Reduction mammaplasty with the modified round block technique in Chinese patients and its anatomy study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2017; 51: 306–12. doi: 10.1080/2000656X.2016.1260575
22. Calobrace MB, Herdt DR, Cothron KJ. Simultaneous augmentation/mastopexy: a retrospective 5-year review of 332 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131: 145–56. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318272bf86
23. Salgarello M, Visconti G. Staying out of double-bubble and bottoming-out deformities in dual-plane breast augmentation: anatomical and clinical study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017; 41: 999–1006. doi: 10.1007/s00266-017-0918-8
24. Hamdi M, Würinger E, Schlenz I, Kuzbari R. Anatomy of the breast: a clinical application. In: Hamdi M, Hammond DC, Nahai F, eds. Vertical scar mammaplasty. Berlin: Springer; 2005; pp. 1–8.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
