medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2022, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2022; 32 (3)

Triangular triple suture for scar reduction in breast augmentation with implants

Ortiz-López JB, Vázquez-Armenta MG, Martínez-Mosqueira JR

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 140-144
PDF size: 274.69 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The size of the final incision in breast augmentation with implants is an important factor for the degree of patient satisfaction; therefore, the incision should be as small as possible, but large enough to perform complete and accurate pocket dissection, prospective hemostasis, washing of tissue debris and allow permit implant placement without causing damage to the wound edges or distortion of the device. Seeking a balance between both demands we propose a simple, reproducible, and safe technique for sub mammary incision closure with tissue recruitment by placing triangular triple stitches that consistently allows reduction of the total wound length by at least 1 centimeter, which will enable the surgeon to get closer to the request for small incisions without sacrificing accurate dissection, hemostasis, lavage, implant integrity and safety in wound closure.


REFERENCES

  1. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2020. Available in: https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ISAPS-Global-Survey_2020.pdf

  2. Calobrace MB. Teaching breast augmentation: a focus on critical intraoperative techniques and decision making to maximize results and minimize revisions. Clin Plast Surg 2015; 42 (4): 493-504.

  3. Skaria AM. Incision lines on the female breast. Dermatology 2020; 236: 248-250.

  4. Borges AF. Relaxed skin tension lines (RSTL) versus other skin lines. Plast Reconstr Surg 1984; 73 (1): 144-150.

  5. Kraissl CJ. The selection of appropriate lines for elective surgical incisions. Plast Reconstr Surg 1951; 8 (1): 1-28.

  6. Aboelatta YA, Aboelatta H, Elgazzar K. A simple method for proper placement of the inframammary fold incision in primary breast augmentation. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 75 (5): 497-502.

  7. Tebbetts JB. Achieving a predictable table 24-hour return to normal activities after breast augmentation: part I. Refining practices by using motion and time study principles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109 (1): 273-290.

  8. Awad AN. Heiman AJ, Patel A. Implants and breast pocket irrigation: outcomes of antibiotic, antiseptic, and saline irrigation. Aesthet Surg J 2022; 42 (2): 102-111.

  9. Hillard C, Fowler J.D, Barta R, Cunningham B. Silicone breast implant rupture: a review. Gland Surg 2017; 6 (2): 163-168.

  10. Adams WP Jr, Culbertson EJ, Deva AK et al. Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (3): 427-431.

  11. Adams W.P. The process of breast augmentation: four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122: 1892-1900.

  12. Non-active surgical implants – Mammary implants particular requirements. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; ISO 14607: 2018.

  13. Muresan C, Ford MM, Anderson EW, Lee TJ, Hiller AR, Kachare SD et al. Optimal inframammary fold incision length based on implant volume for breast enlargement: a cadaveric study. Eplasty 2019; 19: e7.

  14. Montemurro P, Fischer S, Schyllander S, Mallucci P, Hedén P. Implant insertion time and incision length in breast augmentation surgery with the keller funnel: results from a comparative study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2019; 43 (4): 881-889.

  15. Zeplin PH. Minimal scar breast augmentation: experience with over 500 implants. Mikrochir Plast Chir 2021; 53 (2): 144-148.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com