Background: The design methods for dual-plane implant pockets for axillary endoscopic breast augmentation vary among different countries. We applied a modified approach for an Asian population.
Methods: Seventy patients with micromastia underwent our modified approach between 2011 and 2014. Breasts were divided into two types according to the soft-tissue pinch thickness of the lower pole: type I (thickness >2 cm; Group I) and type II (thickness ≤2 cm; Group II). The levels at which the pectoralis major (PM) was severed were 6-6.5 cm and 3-4 cm below the nipple for type I and II pockets, respectively. Then, dissection of the retromammary space was continued from the severance level downward to the new inframammary fold for type I pockets, whereas no dissection was made for type II pockets. All patients completed the pre- and post-operative BREAST-Q augmentation modules.
Results: During a mean follow-up of 10 months (range, 6-12 months), patients reported higher satisfaction with breasts after surgery than before surgery (satisfaction scores of 64.9 ± 5.6 vs. 14.7 ± 11.0). The mean satisfaction score for the overall outcome was 91.3 ± 17.3. However, there was no significant difference in physical well-being (87.1 ± 10.4 vs. 85.2 ± 11.7). No complications such as severe capsular contracture or displacement occurred.
Conclusion: Distinguishing the need for a type I or II dual-plane pocket can lead to good outcomes and optimal soft-tissue coverage. The higher satisfaction and quality of life reported by our patients indicate that our new design is feasible and safe for most Asians with a medium build.
Level of evidence ii: 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.
Keywords: BREAST-Q; Breast augmentation; Dual-plane technique; Endoscope; Micromastia.