Breast Augmentation in Athletic Women: A Retrospective Survey Assessing Pectoral Muscle Function and Implant Aesthetics Post-Augmentation.

Abstract

Breast augmentation is the most common cosmetic, surgical procedure (1). Implant insertion planes include subglandular or submuscular. Submuscular augmentation is often preferred in women with less soft tissue coverage; requiring pectoralis major dissection (2). However, loss of functional muscle fibres is undesirable in athletic women who actively train the pectoral region. 1. Assessment of pectoralis function and strength after breast augmentation in athletic women. 2. Augmentation aesthetical satisfaction at rest and whilst training. A retrospective survey was sent to female, fitness competitors with breast implants via social media over a six-month period. The survey assessed baseline demographics, pectoral strength (bench press, push-ups, pectoral fly), aesthetical satisfaction and issues during training including pain, rippling, firmness and implant movement. Eighty-one participants were surveyed. The mean age of augmentation was 29.7 (±8.41), and mean age of survey completion was 37.6 (±7.22) years. Submuscular augmentation was performed in 72.8% of participants. Recovery post-operative and time spent training was synonymous. The majority of participants' pectoral strength was unaffected or positively affected by breast augmentation. Assessment of post-operative performance and training issues of pain, rippling and firmness yielded no statistically significant difference between groups. Implant movement during pectoral exercises was 2.5 times more likely with submuscular augmentations, p= 0.038. Overall, the majority of the population were very satisfied or satisfied with their breast aesthetic at rest (92.6%) and during training (79.0%). Breast augmentation in athletic women has a high satisfaction rate with the majority maintaining or improving the strength of the pectoral region regardless of augmentation plane. 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 https://www.springer.com/journal/00266 .