Silicone Implant Versus Silicone Implant Assisted by Stromal Enriched Lipograft Breast Augmentation: A Prospective Comparative Study.

Aris Sterodimas

doi:10.3390/medicines7050028

Abstract

Background: Implant-assisted breast augmentation is among the most performed surgeries performed by plastic surgeons today. This prospective study evaluated the patient satisfaction and complication rates using high-profile round silicone implant alone (traditional breast augmentation) Group A versus the high-profile round silicone implant assisted with stromal enriched lipograft (composite breast augmentation) Group B. Methods: A total of 50 female patient candidates to undergo breast augmentation between January to September 2017 were randomly assigned to either group. The periareolar technique for breast augmentation and the subfascial plane were used in both groups for the insertion of the high-profile round silicone implants. The stromal enriched lipograft (SEL) was used in Group B for the preparation of the autologous fat grafting to the breast. The satisfaction of each patient with body appearance following breast augmentation was rated using an already published scale of 1–5. The rate of complications was analysed. Results: AS performed all the surgeries. In Group A, the age range was between 19 and 48 years (mean of 22.5 years). In Group B, the age range was between 20 and 47 years (mean of 24.1 years). The average BMI of Group A was 24 m/kg2 and 23 m/kg2 of Group B. Patient satisfaction meta-analysis for Group A and B at 12 months shows that patients in Group B expressed a satisfaction that is superior when compared to Group A patients. The ability to camouflage the implant could explain the higher satisfaction rates in Group B. The rate of complications appears similar in both groups. Conclusions: Composite breast augmentation using a combination of round high-profile implants and SEL in breast augmentation can achieve a higher patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome as compared to the round high-profile breast augmentation alone. The technique is safe, simple and fast with low complication rates. Large multicentre, controlled, prospective studies need to be performed to further confirm the favourable results that were observed in this study.

Highlights

The breasts are one of the most important characteristics of femininity [1]
Composite breast augmentation using a combination of round high-profile implants and stromal enriched lipograft (SEL) in breast augmentation can achieve a higher patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome as compared to the round high-profile breast augmentation alone
The average time for a traditional breast augmentation in Group A ranged between 60–110 min

Summary

Introduction

The breasts are one of the most important characteristics of femininity [1]. Breast augmentation surgery with implants is one of the most common aesthetic surgical procedures performed worldwide.In patients that will undergo breast augmentation, various factors need to be addressed like the age of the patient, the breast volume, the tissue coverage, the type and the size of the implant, and the resulting scars. Breast augmentation surgery with implants is one of the most common aesthetic surgical procedures performed worldwide. Breast augmentation is among the procedures that are most performed worldwide [2]. Many patients notice the unnatural result of the breast augmentation achieved when only silicone implants are used. Implant-assisted breast augmentation is among the most performed surgeries performed by plastic surgeons today. This prospective study evaluated the patient satisfaction and complication rates using high-profile round silicone implant alone (traditional breast augmentation). Group A versus the high-profile round silicone implant assisted with stromal enriched lipograft (composite breast augmentation) Group B. The periareolar technique for breast augmentation and the subfascial plane were used in both groups for the insertion of the high-profile round silicone implants. In Group A, the age range was between 19 and 48 years (mean of 22.5 years)

Methods

Results

Conclusion