Management based on grading of animation deformity following implant-based subpectoral breast reconstruction

Subpectoral breast reconstruction using implants and meshes have been used widely in Europe, the United States and the United Kingdom. Although this technique has several advantages, animation deformity is a well-documented problem. We propose a new grading system to classify breast animation in patients undergoing subpectoral implant based breast reconstruction. We also discuss different techniques to avoid and correct animation deformity.

Keywords

Animation - Breast - Mammaplasty - Breast implants

Publication History

Received: 30 July 2017

Accepted: 12 September 2017

Article published online:
22 May 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Reitsamer R, Peintinger F. Prepectoral implant placement and complete coverage with porcine acellular dermal matrix: a new technique for direct-to-implant breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68: 162-7
• 2 Jeevan R, Cromwell D, Browne J. et al. The National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit 2009: Second Annual Report. A national audit of provision and outcomes of mastectomy and breast reconstruction surgery for women in England [Internet]. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre; c2009 [cited 2017 Sep 30]. Available from: http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB02722/clin-audisupp-prog-mast-brea-reco-2009-rep1.pdf
• 3 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2012 Plastic surgery statistics [Internet]. Arlington Heights, IL: American Society of Plastic Surgeons; c2013 [cited 2017 Sep 30]. Available from: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2012/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2012.pdf
• 4 Gandhi A, Barr L, Johnson R. Bioprosthetics: changing the landscape for breast reconstruction?. Eur J Surg Oncol 2013; 39: 24-5
• 5 Madsen Jr RJ, Chim J, Ang B. et al. Variance in the origin of the pectoralis major muscle: implications for implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74: 111-3
• 6 Sbitany H, Langstein HN. Acellular dermal matrix in primary breast reconstruction. Aesthet Surg J 2011; 31(7 Suppl): 30s-37s
• 7 Lesavoy MA, Trussler AP, Dickinson BP. Difficulties with subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty and its correction: the role of subglandular site change in revision aesthetic breast surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125: 363-71
• 8 Spear SL, Schwartz J, Dayan JH. et al. Outcome assessment of breast distortion following submuscular breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2009; 33: 44-8
• 9 Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107: 1255-72
• 10 Vidya R, Masia J, Cawthorn S. et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the prepectoral breast reconstruction with Braxon dermal matrix: first multicenter European report on 100 cases. Breast J 2017; 23: 670-6
• 11 Spear SL, Carter ME, Ganz JC. The correction of capsular contracture by conversion to “dual-plane” positioning: technique and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118: 103S-113S
• 12 Baxter RA. Subfascial breast augmentation: theme and variations. Aesthet Surg J 2005; 25: 447-53
• 13 Hammond DC, Schmitt WP, O’Connor EA. Treatment of breast animation deformity in implant-based reconstruction with pocket change to the subcutaneous position. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135: 1540-4
• 14 Richards A, Ritz M, Donahoe S. et al. Botox for contraction of pectoral muscles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108: 270-1
• 15 Maxwell GP, Tornambe R. Management of mammary subpectoral implant distortion. Clin Plast Surg 1988; 15: 601-11