Display options
Cite
Stevens WG, Stoker DA, Freeman ME, et al. Is one-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2006;26(6):674-81doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.10.003.
Stevens, W. G., Stoker, D. A., Freeman, M. E., Quardt, S. M., Hirsch, E. M., & Cohen, R. (2006). Is one-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases. Aesthetic surgery journal, 26(6), 674-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2006.10.003
Stevens, W Grant, et al. "Is one-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases." Aesthetic surgery journal vol. 26,6 (2006): 674-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asj.2006.10.003
Stevens WG, Stoker DA, Freeman ME, Quardt SM, Hirsch EM, Cohen R. Is one-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):674-81. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.10.003. PMID: 19338958.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Aesthet Surg J. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):674-81. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.10.003.

Is one-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases.

Aesthetic surgery journal

W Grant Stevens, David A Stoker, Mark E Freeman, Suzanne M Quardt, Elliot M Hirsch, Robert Cohen

PMID: 19338958 DOI: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.10.003

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although some authors have reported that 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy does not increase the risks of surgery, recent literature has raised the question of whether better results might be achieved by staging the procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the safety and efficacy of 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy in their own patients by analyzing long-term complication and revision rates.

METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 186 consecutive patients who underwent primary 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy at a single outpatient facility. Patient data recorded included age, body mass index, smoking status, degree of breast ptosis, and any preoperative asymmetry. Operation-related data recorded included type of mastopexy performed, operating surgeon, length of surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists level, and concomitant procedures. Data on implant type, volume, and position were also collected. Complication and revision rates were recorded and calculated.

RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (44%) received saline implants; 104 (56%) received silicone implants. In most cases, textured implants were placed in submuscular pockets. The mean implant volume was 320 cc. Inverted T mastopexy was performed in 60% of cases, circumareolar in 24% of cases, and vertical or crescent accounted for most of the remainder. No severe complications occurred, although 1 patient developed a late infection that required removal of the breast implant. The most common complication was saline implant deflation (5.9%), although saline implants were used in less than half of cases. Thirty-one patients (16.7%) underwent some form of revision surgery within the average 42-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS: Our review of 1-stage breast augmentation with mastopexy procedures revealed no severe complications. Although the overall revision rate of 16.7% is significant, it is comparable to rates for breast augmentation alone and is significantly lower than the 100% reoperation rate required for a staged procedure. In our experience, it is a safe and effective procedure, although one that is not easy to perform. Patients should be advised of the possibility that a second procedure may be necessary.

Publication Types