Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2018; 45(02): 185-190
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2017.01242
Idea and innocation

Management based on grading of animation deformity following implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction

Raghavan Vidya
Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
,
Habib Tafazal
Department of Breast Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
,
Fathi Salem
Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
,
Fahad Mujtaba Iqbal
St George’s Hospital, London, UK
,
Tapan Sircar
Department of Breast Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Subpectoral breast reconstruction using implants and meshes have been used widely in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Although this technique has several advantages, animation deformity is a well-documented problem. We propose a new grading system to classify breast animation in patients undergoing subpectoral implant based breast reconstruction. We also discuss different techniques to avoid and correct animation deformity.

Keywords

Animation - Breast - Mammaplasty - Breast implants


Publication History

Received: 30 July 2017

Accepted: 12 September 2017

Article published online:
22 May 2022

© 2018. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68: 162-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jeevan R, Cromwell D, Browne J. et al. The National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2009: Second Annual Report. A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England [Internet]. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre; c2009 [cited 2017 Sep 30]. Available from: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB02722/clin-audisupp-prog-mast-brea-reco-2009-rep1.pdf
  • 3 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2012 Plastic surgery statistics [Internet]. Arlington Heights, IL: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; c2013 [cited 2017 Sep 30]. Available from: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2012/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2012.pdf
  • 4 Gandhi A, Barr L, Johnson R. Bioprosthetics: changing the landscape for breast reconstruction?. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39: 24-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Madsen Jr RJ, Chim J, Ang B. et al. Variance in the origin of the pectoralis major muscle: implications for implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74: 111-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sbitany H, Langstein HN. Acellular dermal matrix in primary breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31(7 Suppl): 30s-37s
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lesavoy MA, Trussler AP, Dickinson BP. Difficulties with subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty and its correction: the role of subglandular site change in revision aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 363-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH. et al. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 44-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107: 1255-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Vidya R, Masia J, Cawthorn S. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J 2017; 23: 670-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Spear SL, Carter ME, Ganz JC. The correction of capsular contracture by conversion to “dual-plane” positioning: technique and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118: 103S-113S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baxter RA. Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variations. Aesthet Surg J 2005; 25: 447-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135: 1540-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Richards A, Ritz M, Donahoe S. et al. Botox for contraction of pectoral muscles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108: 270-1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Maxwell GP, Tornambe R. Management of mammary subpectoral implant distortion. Clin Plast Surg 1988; 15: 601-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar