The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Login
EN
+7 (495) 482-4118
+7 (495) 482-4329
+8 800 250-18-12
  • (toll-free number for subscriptions)
    Mon-Fri from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

  • © 1998-2026
+7 (495) 482-43-29
EN
All journals
Journal
Year
Year
Search result: 0

Korableva N.P.

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Romanenkov N.S.

Medical Information and Analytical Center

Tsekhmistro Ya.V.

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Nekrasov A.A.

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Grigoryan A.G.

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

The influence of the anatomical layer of breast implants placement on the results of augmentation mammoplasty (meta-analysis)

Authors:

Korableva N.P., Romanenkov N.S., Tsekhmistro Ya.V., Nekrasov A.A., Grigoryan A.G.

More about the authors

Journal: Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;(3): 85‑91

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202103185

Read: 2445 times

Download PDF (RU)
Download PDF
Contact the author
Table of contents

THE INFLUENCE OF THE ANATOMICAL LAYER OF BREAST IMPLANTS PLACEMENT ON THE RESULTS OF AUGMENTATION MAMMOPLASTY (META-ANALYSIS)
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ANATOMICAL LAYER OF BREAST IMPLANTS PLACEMENT ON THE RESULTS OF AUGMENTATION MAMMOPLASTY (META-ANALYSIS)

To cite this article:

Korableva NP, Romanenkov NS, Tsekhmistro YaV, Nekrasov AA, Grigoryan AG. The influence of the anatomical layer of breast implants placement on the results of augmentation mammoplasty (meta-analysis). Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2021;(3):85‑91. (In Russ., In Engl.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202103185

Подписка 2026 Пластическая хирургия и эстетическая медицина (Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine)
МСФ на ЯМ
Использование инфографики авторами научных работ
Close metadata
Recommended articles:
Correction of problems asso­ciated with breast implants. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medi­cine. 2025;(1):116-123
Fat grafting for breast shaping after implant remo­val. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medi­cine. 2025;(2):61-69
Comparative analysis of microtextured breast implant shells. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medi­cine. 2025;(2-2):13-15
Lipo­suction and abdo­minoplasty in body contouring: syne­rgy or anta­gonism?. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medi­cine. 2025;(3):71-78
Repeated breast reco­nstruction after previous complications. Piro­gov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2025;(6):51-57
Abstract:

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence of complications and redo surgeries depending on anatomical layer of breast implant placement in patients undergoing augmentation mammoplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

English-language manuscripts published in the PubMed/MEDLINE database for the period from January 01, 2010 to December 20, 2020 were selected. The following data were analyzed: surname of the first author, year of publication, study design, sample size, mean age and body mass index, follow-up, complications (infections, hematomas, capsular contracture, implant migration) and freedom from redo surgery. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were determined for each parameter. Statistical heterogeneity of publications was evaluated using χ2 and I2 criteria. Differences were significant at p-value<0.05.

RESULTS

Data on 17644 cases of aesthetic augmentation mammoplasty were analyzed. Silicone implants were placed under pectoralis major muscle in 12989 cases. Subglandular or subfascial placement was applied in 4655 patients. Incidence of surgical site infection, hematoma and freedom from redo surgery were similar after subpectoral and prepectoral breast implant placement. Capsular contracture rate was 5.3 times higher for prepectoral implantation. Breast implant displacement was 7.2 times more common in subpectoral group.

CONCLUSION

Subpectoral and prepectoral implantation in breast augmentation has advantages and disadvantages regarding postoperative complications. Potential risks of complications depending on breast implant placement should be carefully explained prior to surgery.

Keywords:

augmentation mammoplasty
breast replacement
complications of augmentation mammoplasty
capsular contracture
surgical site infection
implant displacement
hematoma

Authors:

Korableva N.P.

Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Romanenkov N.S.

Medical Information and Analytical Center

Tsekhmistro Ya.V.

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Nekrasov A.A.

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Grigoryan A.G.

St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University

Received:

23.03.2021

Accepted:

08.04.2021

Close metadata

References:

  1. Adams WP Jr, Afrooz PN, Stuzin JM. Tissue-Based Planning and Technique for Breast Augmentation with Anatomical Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1634‐1636. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005663
  2. Wan D, Rohrich RJ. Modern Primary Breast Augmentation: Best Recommendations for Best Results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(6):933‐946.  https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000005050
  3. Horsnell JD, Searle AE, Harris PA. Intra-operative techniques to reduce the risk of capsular contracture in patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation — A review. Surgeon. 2017;15(5):282‐289.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2017.03.001
  4. Panczel G, Munhoz AM. A Simple and Low-cost Method of Sleeve to Insert Silicone Gel Breast Implants. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(9): e2389. PMID: 31942375. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002389
  5. ISAPS international survey on aesthetic/cosmetic procedures performed in 2018. Accessed May 25, 2020. https://www.isaps.org/medical-professionals/isaps-global-statistics
  6. McGuire P, Reisman NR, Murphy DK. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture, malposition, and late seroma in subjects receiving natrelle 410 form-stable silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000002837
  7. Calobrace MB, Stevens WG, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, Godinez T, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 10-year sientra study using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:20-28.  https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004351
  8. Benito-Ruiz J, Manzano ML, Salvador-Miranda L. Five year outcomes of breast augmentation with form-stable implants: periareolar vs transaxillary. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:46-56.  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjw154
  9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1006-1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
  10. Shi H, Cao C, Li X, Chen L, Li S. A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(10):18737‐18743. PMID: 26770489.
  11. Spear SL, Murphy DK (Allergan Silicone Breast Implant U.S. Core Clinical Study Group). Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1354-1361. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000000021
  12. Khan UD. Muscle-splitting, subglandular, and partial submuscular augmentation mammoplasties: a 12-year retrospective analysis of 2026 primary cases. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2013;37:290-302.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-0026-8
  13. Stutman RL, Codner M, Mahoney A, Amei A. Comparison of breast augmentation incisions and common complications. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2012; 36:1096-1104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9918-x
  14. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, Harrington JL, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, d’Incelli RC, Beckstrand M. Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1115-1123. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000435317.76381.68
  15. Shen Z, Chen X, Sun J, Chiu C, Yu Y, Lin X, Zhang Z, Xu J. A comparative assessment of three planes of implant placement in breast augmentation: A Bayesian analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(12):1986‐1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2019.09.010
  16. Egeberg A, Sorensen JA. The impact of breast implant location on the risk of capsular contraction. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;77(2):255-259.  https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000000227
  17. Bachour Y, Bargon CA, de Blok CJM, Ket JCF, Ritt MJPF, Niessen FB. Risk factors for developing capsular contracture in women after breast implant surgery: A systematic review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(9):e29‐e48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.022
  18. Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Capsular Contracture after Breast Augmentation: An Update for Clinical Practice. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42(5): 532‐543.  https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2015.42.5.532
  19. Yalanis GC, Liu EW, Cheng HT. Efficacy and safety of povidone-iodine irrigation in reducing the risk of capsular contracture in aesthetic breast augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015; 136:687-698.  https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000001576
  20. Li S, Chen L, Liu W, Mu D, Luan J. Capsular contracture rate after breast augmentation with periareolar versus other two (inframammary and transaxillary) incisions: a meta-analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg. 2018;42:32-37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0965-1
  21. Tanner B. Low rate of capsular contracture in a series of 214 consecutive primary and revision breast augmentations using microtextured implants. JPRAS Open. 2017;15:66‐73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2017.10.007
  22. Jewell ML, Adams WP Jr. Betadine and Breast Implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38(6):623‐626.  https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy044
  23. Stevens WG, Calobrace MB, Alizadeh K, Zeidler KR, Harrington JL, d’Incelli RC. Ten-year core study data for Sientra’s Food and Drug Administration-approved round and shaped breast implants with cohesive silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:7-19.  https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000004350
  24. Kaartinen I, Sunela K, Alanko J, Hukkinen K, Karjalainen-Lindsberg M-L, Svarvar C. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma from diagnosis to treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:1385-1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.05.021
  25. Shustov A, Soma L. Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Contemporary Concepts and Optimal Management. Cancer Treat Res. 2019;176:127-144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99716-2_6
  26. Laurent C, Haioun C, Brousset P, Gaulard P. New insights into breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2018; 30(5):292-300.  https://doi.org/10.1097/cco.0000000000000476
Contact the author
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

Contact us
If you have any questions, complaints or suggestions, please use this feedback form.
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.
Submit Application

You can become an author of one of our magazines, send a request and we will consider it in during the day.

Name
Phone
E-mail
Message
Login
Registration
E-mail
Password
Forgot Password?

Log in to the site using your account in one of the services

Password recovery
E-mail
Login
Register

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.