Objective: There are many nuances in each stage of breast augmentation surgery. In clinical practice, each plastic surgeon may have different preferences during different stages of the surgery. In this study, a survey was conducted to reveal the current attitudes of plastic surgeons in breast augmentation surgery. Material and Methods: A 35-item electronic survey was administered to plastic surgeons in Türkiye. The survey included questions about common surgical practices, the use of new technologies, and technical issues in secondary surgery. The collected data were systematically analyzed. Results: A total of 130 plastic surgeons participated in the survey. The preferred incision was inframammary in 95 percent of cases, periareolar in 3 percent, and transaxillary in 1 percent. The most frequently preferred pocket plane was the submuscular plane in 63 percent of cases and the subglandular or subfascial plane in 37 percent. Ninety-three percent of the participants stated that they always preferred silicone implants. Seventy percent of the participants used textured implants more frequently than smooth-surfaced implants. Eighty-three percent of the participants did not use an insertion funnel. Forty percent of the participants mostly used implants with a volume of 300-350 cc, and 31% of them mostly used implants with a volume of 275-325 cc. Conclusion: This study revealed that there is a trend toward more frequent use of inframammary incisions, silicone as the filling material, textured surfaces, and implant volumes larger than 275 cc in Türkiye. The authors think that complications that may arise in the long term could be different due to different preferences among countries.
Keywords: Breast implants; breast implantation; mammaplasty
Amaç: Meme büyütme cerrahisi, her aşamasında çeşitli incelikler içermektedir. Plastik cerrahlar, genellikle prosedürün farklı aşamalarında bireysel tercihler sergilemektedir. Bu çalışma, plastik cerrahların meme büyütme cerrahisiyle ilgili mevcut eğilimlerini ve uygulamalarını araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Türkiye genelindeki plastik cerrahlara 35 maddelik elektronik bir anket uygulanmıştır. Anket, yaygın cerrahi uygulamalar, yeni teknolojilerin kullanımı ve sekonder cerrahide teknik konuları içermektedir. Toplanan veriler sistematik bir şekilde analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: Anketi yanıtlayan 130 plastik cerrahın %95'i inframammarian insizyonu tercih ederken, %3'ü periareolar insizyonu ve %1'i transaksiller insizyonu tercih etmektedir. En çok tercih edilen cep kas altı olup %63 oranında kullanılırken, %37 oranında subglandüler veya subfasiyal düzey tercih edilmiştir. Katılımcıların %93'ü genellikle silikon implantları tercih ettiklerini belirtmiştir. Katılımcıların %70'i pürtüklü yüzey implantları, düz yüzeyli implantlardan daha sık kullanmaktadır. Kullanıcıların %83'ü yerleştirme hunisi kullanmamaktadır. Katılımcıların %40'ı genellikle 300-350 cc hacmindeki implantları, %31'i ise 275-325 cc hacmindeki implantları tercih etmektedir. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, Türk plastik cerrahlarının inframammarian insizyonu, silikon implantları, pürtüklü yüzey implantları ve 275 cc üzeri hacmindeki implantları daha sık tercih ettiklerini göstermektedir. Yazarlar, farklı ülkelerde uygulanan tekniklerin ve tercihlerin uzun vadeli komplikasyonlar üzerinde etkili olabileceğini düşünmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Meme implantları; meme implantasyonu; mammoplasti
- Pelosi MA 3rd, Pelosi MA 2nd. Breast augmentation. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2010;37(4):533-46, viii. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Reichenberger MA, Biedermann N, Germann G. Ästhetische mammaaugmentation [Aesthetic breast augmentation]. Chirurg. 2011;82(9):782-8. German. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Czerny V. Plastischer Ersatz der Brusthuse durch ein Lipoma. Zentralbl Chir. 1895;27:72. [Link]
- Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new natural feel prosthesis. Transactions of the Third International Congress of Plastic Surgery; Washington, DC; October 13-18, 1963. 1964 Amsterdam, The Netherlands Excerpta Medica [Link]
- Adams WP Jr, Mallucci P. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(4):597e-611e. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Stivala A, Libra M, Stivala F, Perrotta R. Breast cancer risk in women treated with augmentation mammoplasty (review). Oncol Rep. 2012;28(1):3-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Denney BD, Cohn AB, Bosworth JW, Kumbla PA. Revision breast augmentation. Semin Plast Surg. 2021;35(2):98-109. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Epstein MD, Scheflan M. Three-dimensional imaging and simulation in breast augmentation: what is the current state of the art? Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42(4):437-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Acellular dermal matrix for reoperative breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(5):932-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Li FC, Chen B, Cheng L. Breast augmentation with autologous fat injection: a report of 105 cases. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S37-42. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Morkuzu S, Ozdemir M, Leach GA, Kanapathy M, Mosahebi A, Reid CM. Keller funnel efficacy in "no touch" breast augmentation and reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(11):e4676. [PubMed] [PMC]
- Hidalgo DA, Sinno S. Current trends and controversies in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(4):1142-50. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chang EI, Hammond DC. Clinical results on innovation in breast implant design. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(4S The Science of Breast Implants):31S-38S. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wan D, Rohrich RJ. Modern primary breast augmentation: best recommendations for best results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(6):933e-946e. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hedén P, Montemurro P, Adams WP Jr, Germann G, Scheflan M, Maxwell GP. Anatomical and round breast implants: how to select and indications for use. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(2):263-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Cheng F, Cen Y, Liu C, Liu R, Pan C, Dai S. Round versus anatomical implants in primary cosmetic breast augmentation: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(3):711-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Santanelli di Pompeo F, Sorotos M, Clemens MW, Firmani G; European Association of Plastic Surgeons (EURAPS) Committee on Device Safety and Development. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL): review of epidemiology and prevalence assessment in Europe. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(9):1014-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rosing JH, Wong G, Wong MS, Sahar D, Stevenson TR, Pu LL. Autologous fat grafting for primary breast augmentation: a systematic review. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2011;35(5):882-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Lee A. Factor V Leiden. Nursing. 2014;44(6):10-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kujovich JL. Factor V Leiden thrombophilia. Genet Med. 2011;13(1):1-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, Godinez T, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 10-year sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(4S Sientra Shaped and Round Cohesive Gel Implants):20S-28S. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Araco A, Caruso R, Araco F, Overton J, Gravante G. Capsular contractures: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):1808-19. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chong SJ, Deva AK. Understanding the etiology and prevention of capsular contracture: translating science into practice. Clin Plast Surg. 2015;42(4):427-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Newman AN, Davison SP. Effect of Keller Funnel on the rate of capsular contracture in periareolar breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(6):e1834. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Moyer HR, Ghazi B, Saunders N, Losken A. Contamination in smooth gel breast implant placement: testing a funnel versus digital insertion technique in a cadaver model. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(2):194-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Montemurro P, Fischer S, Schyllander S, Mallucci P, Hedén P. Implant insertion time and incision length in breast augmentation surgery with the Keller Funnel: results from a comparative study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2019;43(4):881-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jacobson JM, Gatti ME, Schaffner AD, Hill LM, Spear SL. Effect of incision choice on outcomes in primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32(4):456-62. [PubMed]
- Swanson E. Incision and capsular contracture risk: is there a relationship in breast augmentation and augmentation/mastopexy? Ann Plast Surg. 2023;90(4):389-91. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Tebbetts JB. A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(4):1396-409; discussion 1410-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Samargandi OA, Joukhadar N, Al Youha S, Thoma A, Williams J. Antibiotic irrigation of pocket for implant-based breast augmentation to prevent capsular contracture: a systematic review. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2018;26(2):110-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Barr SP, Topps AR, Barnes NL, Henderson J, Hignett S, Teasdale RL, et al; Northwest Breast Surgical Research Collaborative. Infection prevention in breast implant surgery-a review of the surgical evidence, guidelines and a checklist. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(5):591-603. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Young VL. Guidelines and indications for breast implant capsulectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(3):884-91; discussion 892-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: İşlem Listesi