• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.93-98
• /
• 2007

Purpose: Many options are available for the incision and pocket selection in breast augmentation. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. To leave an invisible operation scar and to achieve easier pocket dissection by the central location of the incision on the breast, we made a transareolar-perinipple incision. To overcome the disadvantages of the transareolar incision, originally advocated by Pitanguy in 1973, we modified the direction of incision line and dissection plane. Methods: To avoid the injury of 4th intercostal nerve responsible for nipple sensation, we made perinipple incision on the medial side of the nipple instead of trans-nipple incision and made the transareolar incision as 11-5 o'clock on the left side and 1-7 o'clock on the right side instead of 3-9 o'clock on both sides. To avoid the possible infection and breast feeding problem caused by the injury to the lactiferous duct, and the possible implant hernia caused by the incisions lying on a same plane of pocket dissection, we made a subcutaneous dissection just above the breast tissue medially down to the bottom of breast tissue and made a subglandular or subfascial pocket, which may avoid the injury of lactiferous duct and create different planes for skin incision and pocket dissection. Other advantages of the transareolar-perinipple incision include easier pocket dissection, less chance of hematoma, and as a result less postoperative pain because of the central location of the approach which allow finger dissection and meticulous bleeding control with direct vision, without any specialized instrument such as an endoscope or long mammary dissectors. As for pocket selection, we made dual pockets. We prefer subglandular or subfascial pocket. Also, we made a subpectoral pocket in the upper 1/4 of the pocket to add more volume on the upper part of the augmented breast, which can make aesthetically more desirable breasts in thin Asian women with small breasts. Possible disadvantages of our method are subclinical infection and scar widening, which could be overcome by meticulous operation techniques, antibiotic therapy, and intradermal tattooing. Results: From September, 2003 to August, 2005, 12 patients underwent breast augmentation using round smooth surface saline implants by our method. During the mean follow-up period of 13 months, there were no complications such as infection, hematoma, capsular contracture, and sensory change of nipple, and results were satisfactory. Conclusion: We suggest breast augmentation via transareolar-perinipple incision and dual pockets(subpectoral-subglandular or subfascial) as a valuable method in thin oriental women with small breasts.

• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.256-258
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Predicting the change in breast size for a specific patient's need is a challenging problem in breast augmentation. We intended to investigate the postaugmentation degree of breast size according to the size of cohesive silicone gel implant. Methods: To predict post-augmentation breast size, we measured 100 patients' pre-and postoperative 3 month's bust circumference. All patients were performed by total subfascial breast augmentation with moderate profile cohesive silicone gel implant through areolar omega (transareolar-perinipple) incision. Results: According to this study, each additional one pair of 100 mL in implant size yielded an approximate 1.5 cm increase in bust circumference (p=0.006). Conclusion: From this result, we conclude that each additional one pair of 100 mL in implant volume yielded about 1.5 cm increase in bust circumference. Although this result may not be applied to every patient, we believe that it yields a practical chart that can help to predict the amount of increase in breast size with the use of cohesive silicone gel implant of a specific size preoperatively.