Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 7, 2026
Single-Port Robotic-assisted Transaxillary Breast-conserving Surgery: A Prospective, Single-arm, Non-randomized Phase IIa Clinical Trial
Published on: August 19, 2025
The biplanar oncoplastic technique case series: a 2-year review
Alexander J Kaminsky1, Ketan M Patel1, Costanza Cocilovo1
11 INOVA Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA 22042, USA ; 2 Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007, USA ; 3 Private Practice, Fairfax Virginia, USA.
Background:
Oncoplastic techniques for breast reconstruction following partial mastectomy are now commonly included in the armamentarium of most reconstructive plastic surgeons. These techniques have been frequently used for women with large breast volume and less frequently used form women with small to moderate breast volume. Most women with smaller breast volumes have been typically considered for mastectomy. As an alternative to mastectomy, the biplanar technique was designed and described as an oncoplastic option. The purpose of this manuscript is to review our 2-year experience using this technique in a series of women with small to moderate breast volume.
Methods:
A retrospective review of patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery from 2011-2012 by the senior authors (RM and MYN) was completed. Ten patients were identified that had the biplanar technique involving glandular tissue rearrangement in conjunction with the immediate placement of a submuscular implant or tissue expander. Patient demographics, perioperative details, and post-operative outcomes were evaluated.
Results:
The mean age and BMI of the ten patients in the study was 56 years (range, 40-68 years) and 24.1 years (range, 20.3-28.6 years) respectively. The mean resection volume was 76.5 g (range, 25-164 g). Eight patients had placement of a permanent implant and two patients had placement of a tissue expander. The average volume of the implanted devices was 138 cc (range, 90-300 cc). In eight patients, a sheet of acellular dermal matrix was used. Immediate biplanar reconstruction was performed in seven patients and a staged-immediate biplanar reconstruction was performed in three patients. Complications included a positive margin on final pathology requiring mastectomy (n=1), infection (n=1), incisional dehiscence following radiation (n=1), and loss of nipple sensation (n=2). Follow-up ranged from 4.5-27 months (mean of 19.5 months).
Conclusions:
The biplanar oncoplastic technique may represent a valuable option in women with small to moderate breast volumes that choose to have breast conservation therapy (BCT). This technique has demonstrated success with minimizing contour irregularities and maintaining breast volume. Based on our early experience, patient satisfaction is favorable.
