Archives of Plastic Surgery

Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (대한성형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Selection of Implants in Unilateral Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction and Contralateral Augmentation

  • Kim, Soo Jung (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Song, Seung Yong (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lew, Dae Hyun (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Dong Won (Institute for Human Tissue Restoration, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2017.05.12
  • Accepted : 2017.08.19
  • Published : 2017.09.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background In breast reconstruction using implants after unilateral mastectomy, it is challenging to create a natural, ptotic contour, and asymmetry is a potential drawback. To achieve breast symmetry and an ideal shape for both breasts, we performed contralateral augmentation in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with implants. Methods Patients underwent unilateral mastectomy and 2-stage reconstruction. During the second stage of the procedure, contralateral augmentation mammoplasty was performed. Preoperatively, we obtained the patients' demographic information, and we then assessed breast volume, the volume and dimensions of the inserted implants, and complications. Breast symmetry was observed by the surgeon and was assessed by measuring the disparity between the final volume of each breast. Results Contralateral augmentation was performed in 52 cases. When compared to patients who did not undergo a contralateral balancing procedure, patients who received contralateral augmentation were younger, thinner, and had smaller breasts. During implant selection for contralateral augmentation, we chose implants that were approximately 1 cm shorter in width, 1 level lower in height, and 1 or 2 levels lower in projection than the implants used for reconstruction. The postoperative breast contours were symmetric and the final volume discrepancy between each breast, which was measured by 3-dimensional scanning, was acceptable. Conclusions We demonstrate that contralateral augmentation can be recommended for patients who perceive their breasts to be small and not beautiful in order to achieve an ideal and beautiful shape for both breasts. Furthermore, this study offers guidelines for selecting the implant that will lead to the optimal aesthetic outcome.

Keywords

References

  1. Nahabedian MY. Managing the opposite breast: contralateral symmetry procedures. Cancer J 2008;14:258-63. https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0b013e31817fbe2b
  2. Nahabedian MY. Symmetrical breast reconstruction: analysis of secondary procedures after reconstruction with implants and autologous tissue. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;115: 257-60.
  3. Losken A, Carlson GW, Bostwick J 3rd, et al. Trends in unilateral breast reconstruction and management of the contralateral breast: the Emory experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002;110:89-97. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200207000-00016
  4. Smith ML, Clarke-Pearson EM, Vornovitsky M, et al. The efficacy of simultaneous breast reconstruction and contralateral balancing procedures in reducing the need for second stage operations. Arch Plast Surg 2014;41:535-41. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.5.535
  5. Giacalone PL, Bricout N, Dantas MJ, et al. Achieving symmetry in unilateral breast reconstruction: 17 years experience with 683 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2002;26:299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-002-2034-6
  6. Nahabedian MY, Galdino G. Symmetrical breast reconstruction: is there a role for three-dimensional digital photography? Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;112:1582-90. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000085818.54980.C4
  7. Tepper OM, Small K, Rudolph L, et al. Virtual 3-dimensional modeling as a valuable adjunct to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Am J Surg 2006;192:548-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.026
  8. Losken A, Fishman I, Denson DD, et al. An objective evaluation of breast symmetry and shape differences using 3-dimensional images. Ann Plast Surg 2005;55:571-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000185459.49434.5f
  9. Lee WY, Kim MJ, Lew DH, et al. Three-dimensional surface imaging is an effective tool for measuring breast volume: a validation study. Arch Plast Surg 2016;43:430-7. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.5.430
  10. Singletary SE, Kroll SS. Skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction. Adv Surg 1996;30:39-52.
  11. Kroll SS, Khoo A, Singletary SE, et al. Local recurrence risk after skin-sparing and conventional mastectomy: a 6-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;104:421-5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199908000-00015
  12. Eccles DM, Gareth Evans D. Management of the contralateral breast in patients with hereditary breast cancer. Breast 2000;9:301-5. https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2000.0143
  13. Raabe NK, Sauer T, Erichsen A, et al. Breast cancer in the contralateral breast: incidence and histopathology after unilateral radical treatment of the first breast cancer. Oncol Rep 1999;6:1001-7.
  14. Healey EA, Cook EF, Orav EJ, et al. Contralateral breast cancer: clinical characteristics and impact on prognosis. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1545-52. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.8.1545
  15. Claus EB, Stowe M, Carter D, et al. The risk of a contralateral breast cancer among women diagnosed with ductal and lobular breast carcinoma in situ: data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry. Breast 2003;12:451-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9776(03)00152-8
  16. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, et al. Contralateral breast carcinoma: an assessment of risk and prognosis in stage I (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) patients with 20-year follow-up. Surgery 1989;106:904-10.
  17. Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:107-38.
  18. Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P, et al. Mammographic measurements before and after augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;86:1126-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199012000-00014
  19. Handel N, Silverstein MJ, Gamagami P, et al. Factors affecting mammographic visualization of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty. JAMA 1992;268:1913-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490140121047

Cited by

  1. Current status of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in South Korea vol.64, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2021.64.1.5