Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Augmentation Mastopexy with a Dermal Encapsulated Round or Anatomic Autoprosthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Several factors, such as aging, pregnancy, and weight loss, reduce the elasticity of the breast tissue, and ptosis occurs. Due to aging and gravity, it is not possible to completely prevent breast ptosis. The goal is to delay the recurrence of ptosis as much as possible.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included 20 female patients aged 25-55 years. The patients who underwent surgery had different levels of ptosis. Although the patients wanted their breasts to be lifted and an increase in projection, they did not want implants to be used. For this reason, autologous flaps were prepared from the patients, and these flaps were called autoprosthesis flaps. The flap donor area (FA) boundaries consisted of the inframammary fold at the bottom, the medial and lateral pillar legs at the two sides and the lower margin of the areola at the top. The skin on the FA was de-epithelialized. A hand dermatome was used to ensure that the extracted skin was not too thick because the rest of the dermal skin would form the cover of the planned autoprosthesis flap. Before surgery, the autoprosthesis flap baseline width, projection, and shape (round or anatomic) were planned for each patient. The autoprosthesis flap was prepared as a central pedicle, and the dermal layer, which was 1 cm wider than the flap, was then attached over the autoprosthesis flap to the pectoral muscle fascia with at least 10 sutures in the recipient area. For a round autoprosthesis flap, the flap base diameter was 10-12 cm on average, whereas for an anatomic autoprosthesis flap, the width of the flap was 10-12 cm and the height was 12-14 cm. Autoprosthesis flap projections varied from 4 to 6 cm.

RESULTS: Because of the autoprosthesis flap, breast projection was more prominent, even in the lying position. All the patients were very satisfied with their size, shape, projection, and natural appearance. In particular, the image in the lying position was very similar to a mastopexy performed with an actual breast implant; thus, sagging was not observed.

CONCLUSION: In augmentation mastopexy patients who do not want implants, upper pole filling and adequate breast projection can be easily achieved with this method. The potential risks of capsule formation, implant rejection, and implant rupture were not observed with this technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app