Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2019; 46(01): 7-15
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2018.00479
Review Article

Breast animation deformity

Diana Lydia Dyrberg 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense and Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
,
Camilla Bille
Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
Gudjon Leifur Gunnarsson
Department of Plastic Surgery, Telemark Hospital, Skien, Norway
,
Tove Faber Frandsen
Videncentret, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
C. Andrew Salzberg
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA
,
Jens Ahm Sørensen
Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
Jørn Bo Thomsen 
Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense and Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Breast animation deformity (BAD) has been reported to occur after submuscular implant placement following breast augmentation and immediate breast reconstruction. Despite its apparent impact on patients’ quality of life, BAD has only recently become a topic of general concern. Its incidence and etiology have yet to be established. The aim of this systematic review was to identify papers that clearly defined and classified BAD and described how the degree of animation was assessed. We performed a search in PubMed and Embase. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria that described BAD after implant-based breast augmentation or immediate breast reconstruction were included. After screening 866 publications, four studies were included: three describing BAD after breast augmentation and one describing BAD after immediate breast reconstruction. The median percentage of patients with some degree of BAD was 58%. The highest percentages were found in patients operated on using the Regnault technique or the dual-plane technique (73%–78%). The lowest percentages were found following the dual-plane muscle-splitting technique (30%) and the triple-plane technique (33%). We found no studies meeting the inclusion criteria that analyzed BAD after prepectoral implant placement. This review of the current literature suggests that the degree of BAD is proportional to the degree of muscle involvement. Evidence is scarce, and the phenomenon seems to be underreported. Future comparative studies are warranted.

Keywords

Treatment outcome - Breast reconstruction - Breast implant - Mammaplasty

Supplemental Table 1. Search histories



Publication History

Received: 16 May 2018

Accepted: 27 August 2018

Article published online:
28 March 2022

© 2019. 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 Pelle-Ceravolo M, Del Vescovo A, Bertozzi E. et al. A technique to decrease breast shape deformity during muscle contraction in submuscular augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2004; 28: 288-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Strasser EJ. Results of subglandular versus subpectoral augmentation over time: one surgeon’s observations. Aesthet Surg J 2006; 26: 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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
  • 4 Sbitany H, Piper M, Lentz R. Prepectoral breast reconstruction: a safe alternative to submuscular prosthetic reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140: 432-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Becker H, Fregosi N. the impact of animation deformity on quality of life in post-mastectomy reconstruction patients. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37: 531-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
  • 7 Becker H, Lind 2nd JG, Hopkins EG. Immediate implant-based prepectoral breast reconstruction using a vertical incision. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2015; 3: e412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Henriksen TF, Fryzek JP, Holmich LR. et al. Surgical intervention and capsular contracture after breast augmentation: a prospective study of risk factors. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54: 343-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118(7 Suppl): 188S-196S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nigro LC, Blanchet NP. Animation deformity in postmastectomy implant-based reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2017; 5: e1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
  • 12 Wallace MS, Wallace AM, Lee J. et al. Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. Pain 1996; 66: 195-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Figus A, Mazzocchi M, Dessy LA. et al. Treatment of muscular contraction deformities with botulinum toxin type A after latissimus dorsi flap and sub-pectoral implant breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62: 869-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kobraei EM, Cauley R, Gadd M. et al. Avoiding breast animation deformity with pectoralis-sparing subcutaneous direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016; 4: e708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Khan UD. Dynamic breasts: a common complication following partial submuscular augmentation and its correction using the muscle-splitting biplane technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 353-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Egeberg A, Sorensen JA. The impact of breast implant location on the risk of capsular contraction. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 77: 255-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Banbury J, Yetman R, Lucas A. et al. Prospective analysis of the outcome of subpectoral breast augmentation: sensory changes, muscle function, and body image. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113: 701-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: e1-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bracaglia R, Tambasco D, Gentileschi S. et al. Triple-plane technique for breast augmentation: solving animation deformities. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2013; 37: 715-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R. et al. Subfascial breast implant: a new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111: 904-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Goes JC, Landecker A. Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: seven years of experience with the subfascial plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003; 27: 178-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Siclovan HR, Jomah JA. Advantages and outcomes in subfascial breast augmentation: a two-year review of experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32: 426-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lang Stumpfle R, Figueras Pereira-Lima L, Alves Valiati A. et al. Transaxillary muscle-splitting breast augmentation: experience with 160 cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36: 343-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Stoff-Khalili MA, Scholze R, Morgan WR. et al. Subfascial periareolar augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114: 1280-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pereira LH, Sterodimas A. Transaxillary breast augmentation: a prospective comparison of subglandular, subfascial, and submuscular implant insertion. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 752-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Khan UD. Muscle-splitting breast augmentation: a new pocket in a different plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007; 31: 553-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gabriel A, Sigalove S, Sigalove NM. et al. Prepectoral revision breast reconstruction for treatment of implant-associated animation deformity: a review of 102 reconstructions. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38: 519-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Baxter RA. Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variations. Aesthet Surg J 2005; 25: 447-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Khan UD. High transverse capsuloplasty for the correction of malpositioned implants following augmentation mammoplasty in partial submuscular plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36: 590-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar