The Experts below are selected from a list of 663 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Eric Swanson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Photometric Evaluation of Long-term Changes in Breast Shape after Breast Augmentation and Vertical Mammaplasty
Wolters Kluwer, 2018Co-Authors: Eric SwansonAbstract:Background:. Little information is presently available regarding the long-term effects of breast augmentation and mammaplasties on breast shape. Existing studies typically use 1-dimensional measurements and mean follow-up times seldom exceed 1 year. Methods:. Twenty women were studied: breast augmentation (n = 5), Mastopexy (n = 5), augmentation/Mastopexy (n = 5), and breast reduction (n = 5). For mammaplasties, a vertical method using a medial pedicle and intraoperative nipple siting was used in all cases. A 2-dimensional measurement system was used, with computer-assisted matching of lateral photographs of the right and left breasts. Measurements were evaluated at 3 times: before surgery, 1 year after surgery, and 10 years after surgery. Results:. Breast implants significantly increased breast projection and upper pole projection. The nipple level was unchanged. The lower pole level dropped. These changes were preserved at 10 years. Vertical Mastopexy provided a modest increment in breast projection and upper pole projection. The nipple level and lower pole level were raised significantly. Augmentation/Mastopexy boosted breast projection and upper pole projection, and also elevated the nipple and lower pole level. Breast reduction changes were similar to Mastopexy, but with greater elevation of nipple level and lower pole level, which were usually lower to start with. Implants increased upper pole convexity. Nipple overelevation was avoided by intraoperative nipple siting just below the breast apex. Conclusions:. These measurements provide new information regarding the long-term effects of breast augmentation and vertical mammaplasties. This information may be used by plastic surgeons in procedure selection and patient counseling
-
all seasons vertical augmentation Mastopexy a simple algorithm clinical experience and patient reported outcomes
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2016Co-Authors: Eric SwansonAbstract:BACKGROUND The safety of augmentation Mastopexy has been questioned. Staging has been recommended for women deemed to be at higher risk, such as women with greater degrees of ptosis. Most existing studies evaluate women treated with multiple methods, including the traditional Wise pattern. This retrospective study specifically evaluates vertical augmentation Mastopexy. A simple algorithm is introduced. METHODS From 2002 to 2016, 252 women underwent consecutive vertical augmentation mastopexies performed by the author, with no staged surgery. All patients underwent a vertical Mastopexy using a medially based pedicle and intraoperative nipple siting. A subset of women treated from 2012 to 2016 were surveyed to obtain outcome data; 90 patients (inclusion rate, 90%) participated. RESULTS The complication rate was 32.9%, including persistent ptosis, delayed wound healing, scar deformities, and asymmetry. There were no cases of nipple loss. An increased risk of complications was detected for smokers (P < 0.01), but not for combined procedures, secondary breast augmentations, or secondary mastopexies. The revision rate was 15.5%. Persistent nipple numbness was reported by 13.3% of respondents. Eighty percent of women were self-conscious about their breast appearance before surgery; 22% of respondents were self-conscious about their breasts after surgery. Seventy percent of respondents reported an improved quality of life, 94.4% would repeat the surgery, and 95.6% would recommend it. CONCLUSIONS A simple algorithm may be used to guide treatment in women who desire correction of ptosis and upper pole fullness. An "all seasons" vertical augmentation Mastopexy is safe and widely applicable. Staging is unnecessary.
-
prospective outcome study of 106 cases of vertical Mastopexy augmentation Mastopexy and breast reduction
Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, 2013Co-Authors: Eric SwansonAbstract:Summary Background Patient-reported data, including effects on patient satisfaction and quality of life, have not been rigorously studied in women treated with Mastopexy and augmentation/Mastopexy. This prospective outcome study evaluates and compares Mastopexy ( n = 36), augmentation/Mastopexy ( n = 47), and reduction ( n = 20) from the patient's perspective. Methods Over a 5-year period, 125 consecutive women underwent vertical mammaplasties incorporating a medial pedicle. In-person interviews were conducted among 106 women at least 1 month after surgery (response rate, 84.8%). Questions were asked in six categories: patient data, indications, recovery, results, complications, and psychological effects. A follow-up study examined the incidence of subjective nipple numbness. Results The mean pain rating was 4.5 on a 1–10 scale. Both Mastopexy (resection weight p p p = 0.01). Conclusions All three breast procedures provide a high level of patient satisfaction (94.3%), improved self-esteem (89.3%), and improved quality of life (69.5%). Mastopexy patients report a symptomatic benefit in addition to correction of ptosis. Vertical augmentation/Mastopexy provides a high level of patient satisfaction.
-
a retrospective photometric study of 82 published reports of Mastopexy and breast reduction
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2012Co-Authors: Eric SwansonAbstract:Background:Numerous publications claim to improve breast projection and upper pole fullness after Mastopexy or breast reduction. Fascial sutures and “autoaugmentation” with local flaps are advocated. However, there is no objective evidence that these efforts are effective. The author has proposed a
Grant W Stevens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pearls to avoid pitfalls with Mastopexy and Mastopexy augmentation
2021Co-Authors: Ali A. Qureshi, Grant W StevensAbstract:Mastopexy and Mastopexy-augmentation are challenging operations that beautify and rejuvenate the breast. Mastopexy reshapes the breast and elevates the nipple-areola complex into a more youthful position, most commonly addressing ptosis seen with aging, weight loss, or postpartum changes. Without an implant, volumization of the breast and the ability to provide a structured scaffold for the breast are difficult. Mastopexy-augmentation allows for not only reshaping and volumization of the breast but involves competing forces of skin removal and increased volume, which can be challenging to balance. The procedure can be performed safely, and with predictable results in a single-stage operation with careful planning and understanding of tissue dynamics, implant characteristics, the natural history of the aging, and the augmented and lifted breast. Common pitfalls with these procedures can be “tissue related” or “implant related.” We here describe our approach and experience with Mastopexy and Mastopexy-augmentation along with tips to avoid common pitfalls and management strategies for the plastic surgeon.
-
strategies and challenges in simultaneous augmentation Mastopexy
Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 2015Co-Authors: Michelle A Spring, Emily C Hartmann, Grant W StevensAbstract:Simultaneous breast augmentation and Mastopexy is a common procedure often considered to be one of the most difficult cosmetic breast surgeries. One-stage augmentation Mastopexy was initially described more than 50 years ago. The challenge lies in the fact that the surgery has multiple opposing goals: to increasing the volume of a breast, enhance the shape, and simultaneously decrease the skin envelope. Successful outcomes in augmentation can be expected with proper planning, technique, and patient education. This article focuses on common indications for simultaneous augmentation Mastopexy, techniques for safe and effective combined procedures, challenges of the procedure, and potential complications.
-
secondary augmentation Mastopexy indications preferred practices and the treatment of complications
Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2014Co-Authors: Michelle A Spring, Luis H Macias, Meghan H Nadeau, Grant W StevensAbstract:Increasing the volume of the breast while simultaneously decreasing the skin envelope equates to surgery involving opposing forces. Increasing patient demand and the evolving perceptions of surgeons have led to the growing popularity of the combined augmentation-Mastopexy operation. In turn, secondary augmentation-mastopexies and revisional surgeries of primary augmentation-mastopexies also have increased in popularity. In this article, the authors describe indications for secondary augmentation-Mastopexy, techniques for performing this combined procedure safely and effectively, adjunctive procedures, potential pitfalls, and the treatment of complications.
-
one stage augmentation Mastopexy a review of 1192 simultaneous breast augmentation and Mastopexy procedures in 615 consecutive patients
Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2014Co-Authors: Grant W Stevens, David A Stoker, Luis H Macias, Michelle A Spring, Carlos O Chacon, Seth EberlinAbstract:Background: Despite the increasing popularity of the combined augmentation Mastopexy procedure among patients, the safety and efficacy of this surgery have been questioned by many surgeons. Objective: The authors investigated the safety and efficacy of the combined augmentation Mastopexy procedure. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 615 consecutive patients who underwent combined augmentation Mastopexy procedures at a single outpatient surgery center from 1992 through 2011. Patient demographics, operative and implant details, and long-term outcomes were analyzed. Rates of complications and revisions were calculated. Results: The most common complications were poor scarring (5.7%), wound-healing problems (2.9%), and deflation of saline implants (2.4%). Of the 615 patients evaluated, 104 (16.9%) elected to undergo revision surgery: 54 revision procedures were secondary to implant-related complications, and 50 were secondary to tissue-related complications. Our data compare favorably with previously reported revision rates for breast augmentation alone and Mastopexy alone. Conclusions: With a skilled surgeon and proper patient selection, the combined augmentation Mastopexy procedure can be safe and effective. Level of Evidence: 4 ![Graphic][1] [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif
-
one stage Mastopexy with breast augmentation a review of 321 patients
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2007Co-Authors: Grant W Stevens, Mark E Freeman, David A Stoker, Suzanne M Quardt, Robert E Cohen, Elliot M HirschAbstract:Background:One-stage Mastopexy with breast augmentation is an increasingly popular procedure among patients. In the past 9 years, there has been a 506 percent increase in Mastopexy procedures alone. Although some recommend a staged Mastopexy and breast augmentation, there are currently no large stud
John B Tebbetts - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a process for quantifying aesthetic and functional breast surgery ii applying quantified dimensions of the skin envelope to design and preoperative planning for Mastopexy and breast reduction
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2014Co-Authors: John B TebbettsAbstract:Background:A previous submission defined methods to objectively define nipple position and vertical and horizontal skin excess in Mastopexy and breast reduction. This article defines a set of second-stage processes for quantified design and operative planning for skin envelope modification.Methods:A
-
a process for quantifying aesthetic and functional breast surgery i quantifying optimal nipple position and vertical and horizontal skin excess for Mastopexy and breast reduction
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013Co-Authors: John B TebbettsAbstract:Background This article defines a comprehensive process using quantified parameters for objective decision making, operative planning, technique selection, and outcomes analysis in Mastopexy and breast reduction, and defines quantified parameters for nipple position and vertical and horizontal skin excess. Future submissions will detail application of the processes for skin envelope design and address composite, three-dimensional parenchyma modification options. Methods Breast base width was used to define a proportional, desired nipple-to-inframammary fold distance for optimal aesthetics. Vertical and horizontal skin excess were measured, documented, and used for technique selection and skin envelope design in Mastopexy and breast reduction. This method was applied in 124 consecutive Mastopexy and 122 consecutive breast reduction cases. Average follow-up was 4.6 years (range, 6 to 14 years). Results No changes were made to the basic algorithm of the defined process during the study period. No patient required nipple repositioning. Complications included excessive lower pole restretch (4 percent), periareolar scar hypertrophy (0.8 percent), hematoma (1.2 percent), and areola shape irregularities (1.6 percent). Delayed healing at the junction of vertical and horizontal scars occurred in two of 124 reduction patients (1.6 percent), neither of whom required revision. The overall reoperation rate was 6.5 percent (16 of 246). Conclusions This study defines the first steps of a comprehensive process for using objectively defined parameters that surgeons can apply to skin envelope design for Mastopexy and breast reduction. The method can be used in conjunction with, or in lieu of, other described methods to determine nipple position.
Jacob G Unger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
getting the most out of augmentation Mastopexy
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2018Co-Authors: Konrad Sarosiek, Patrick G Maxwell, Jacob G UngerAbstract:Learning objectives After reviewing the article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the tenets of proper patient selection. 2. Be familiar with the assessment of patients for augmentation-Mastopexy. 3. Be able to plan an operative approach and execute the critical steps. 4. Be able to recognize common complications and have a basic understanding of their management. 5. Be aware of emerging adjunctive techniques and technologies with respect to augmentation-Mastopexy. Summary Despite being a multivariable and complex procedure, augmentation-Mastopexy remains a central and pivotal component of the treatment algorithm for ptotic and deflated breasts among plastic surgeons. Careful preoperative planning, combined with proper selection of approach and implant, can lead to success. Physicians need to understand that there is a high frequency of reoperation cited in the literature with regard to this procedure, and discussions before the initial operation can help alleviate common misunderstandings and challenges inherent in this operation.
Paul Nistor - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
modified internal Mastopexy technique in muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Horia R şiclovan, Paul NistorAbstract:BACKGROUND The technique of muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation associated with internal Mastopexy to correct breast hypoplasia, ptosis and asymmetry was reported in 2014. The purpose of this article is to present recent modifications and results of this technique. METHODS Since 2016, 30 patients with breast hypoplasia associated with excessive or loose skin envelope or breast ptosis grade I have benefited from a new and improved technique of internal suture Mastopexy combined with the muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation (muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation with internal Mastopexy type II or MSBBA-IM2). RESULTS Excellent long-term results have been obtained by using the muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation with internal Mastopexy type II, which maintains a natural breast shape and a smooth transition between the soft tissue and implant in the upper pole by redraping the breast parenchyma both at the level of the upper pole and at the level of the lower pole of the breast. CONCLUSIONS The new technique of muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation with internal Mastopexy type II or MSBBA-IM2 offers improved long-term aesthetic results and is an effective alternative in selected patients requiring correction of breast hypoplasia associated with excessive or loose skin envelope or breast ptosis grade I. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV Level of Evidence IV 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.
-
modified internal Mastopexy technique in muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, 2020Co-Authors: Horia R şiclovan, Paul NistorAbstract:The technique of muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation associated with internal Mastopexy to correct breast hypoplasia, ptosis and asymmetry was reported in 2014. The purpose of this article is to present recent modifications and results of this technique. Since 2016, 30 patients with breast hypoplasia associated with excessive or loose skin envelope or breast ptosis grade I have benefited from a new and improved technique of internal suture Mastopexy combined with the muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation (muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation with internal Mastopexy type II or MSBBA-IM2). Excellent long-term results have been obtained by using the muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation with internal Mastopexy type II, which maintains a natural breast shape and a smooth transition between the soft tissue and implant in the upper pole by redraping the breast parenchyma both at the level of the upper pole and at the level of the lower pole of the breast. The new technique of muscle splitting biplane breast augmentation with internal Mastopexy type II or MSBBA-IM2 offers improved long-term aesthetic results and is an effective alternative in selected patients requiring correction of breast hypoplasia associated with excessive or loose skin envelope or breast ptosis grade I. Level of Evidence IV 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.