Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Periareolar subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty

R P Gruber, G D Friedman

    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
    |April 1, 1981
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study explores a modified breast augmentation technique using a periareolar incision to place implants in the subpectoral plane. Thirty patients were followed for 10 to 16 months. The goal was to combine the benefits of subpectoral placement with the minimal scarring of the periareolar approach. The technique involved splitting the pectoralis muscle to access the subpectoral plane. Results suggested reduced capsular contracture, better visualization of the muscle detachment, and superior scarring compared to the inframammary approach. Postoperative tonometry measurements correlated with clinical impressions of breast softness. The study supports the feasibility of this modified technique in improving surgical outcomes.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Photosensitizing antihypertensive drug use and risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

    The British journal of dermatology·2018
    Same author

    Postrhinoplasty fibrotic syndrome.

    HNO·2017
    Same author

    Hydrochlorothiazide use is strongly associated with risk of lip cancer.

    Journal of internal medicine·2017
    Same author

    Systolic blood pressure and mortality in prevalent haemodialysis patients in the HEMO study.

    Journal of human hypertension·2010
    Same author

    Early surgical intervention after rhinoplasty.

    Aesthetic surgery journal·2009
    Same author

    Suture techniques in rhinoplasty by use of the endonasal (closed) approach.

    Aesthetic surgery journal·2009

    Area of Science:

    • Plastic surgery techniques
    • Breast augmentation outcomes
    • Surgical incision approaches

    Background:

    Breast augmentation procedures often balance implant placement and incision location to optimize outcomes. Established knowledge shows subpectoral placement reduces capsular contracture risk, while periareolar incisions typically yield less visible scars. However, combining these benefits remains underexplored. No prior work had resolved how to access the subpectoral plane through a periareolar incision without compromising implant placement. This gap motivated the development of a modified surgical approach. Prior research has shown that subcutaneous and inframammary incisions each have distinct advantages and limitations. That uncertainty drove the need to evaluate a novel periareolar technique. The periareolar approach allows access to the subpectoral plane but requires precise dissection to avoid complications. No prior work had resolved how to ensure implant stability in this modified setting.

    Purpose Of The Study:

    This study aimed to evaluate a modified periareolar subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty technique. The specific problem addressed was the challenge of achieving subpectoral implant placement through a periareolar incision. The motivation was to combine the benefits of subpectoral positioning with the minimal scarring of the periareolar approach. The researchers proposed that splitting the pectoralis muscle fibers could allow larger implants without displacement. The approach was tested in 30 patients with a follow-up period of 10 to 16 months. The goal was to assess capsular contracture rates, implant stability, and scar visibility. The study also aimed to evaluate the correlation between breast tonometry measurements and clinical impressions of softness. The researchers proposed that this method could improve outcomes by addressing known limitations of existing techniques.

    Keywords:
    breast augmentation techniquessubpectoral implant placementperiareolar incision outcomescapsular contracture prevention

    Frequently Asked Questions

    The main outcome is a reduced incidence of capsular contracture and better visualization of the muscular detachment.

    The periareolar incision results in a superior scar compared to the inframammary incision in terms of visibility.

    Splitting the pectoralis muscle allows access to the subpectoral plane and facilitates implant placement without displacement.

    Breast tonometry measures softness and correlates well with clinical impressions of firmness or softness.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Methods:

    The surgical technique involved a periareolar incision under general anesthesia. Dissection proceeded straight down to the pectoralis muscle. The muscle was split between its fibers to access the subpectoral plane. Part of the muscle origin from the ribs and sternum was detached. The implant pocket was extended subcutaneously lateral to the muscle. Postoperative tonometry measured breast softness quantitatively. The study included 30 patients with follow-up periods of 10 to 16 months. The primary outcome was the incidence of capsular contracture and implant displacement.

    Main Results:

    Initial results suggested a reduced incidence of capsular contracture with subpectoral placement. Breast tonometry measurements correlated well with clinical impressions of softness. The periareolar scar was found to be superior to the inframammary scar in terms of visibility. The periareolar approach allowed better visualization of the muscular detachment. Larger implants could be inserted without displacement by the muscle. Postoperative assessments showed no significant complications related to the modified technique. The follow-up period of 10 to 16 months provided sufficient time to evaluate outcomes. The results supported the feasibility of combining subpectoral placement with a periareolar incision.

    Conclusions:

    The authors proposed that subpectoral placement through a periareolar incision reduces capsular contracture risk. The periareolar scar was found to be superior to the inframammary scar in terms of visibility. The modified technique allowed better visualization of the muscular detachment. The study suggested that breast tonometry measurements correlate with clinical impressions of softness. The approach enabled the insertion of larger implants without displacement by the muscle. The follow-up period of 10 to 16 months provided sufficient time to assess outcomes. The results supported the feasibility of combining subpectoral placement with a periareolar incision. The authors proposed that this method could improve outcomes by addressing known limitations of existing techniques.

    The follow-up period for the 30 patients ranged from 10 to 16 months.

    The authors propose that the modified technique improves outcomes by reducing capsular contracture and enhancing implant placement.