Abstract
A study of 156 patients who underwent augmentation mammoplasty at the Medical College of Georgia from June 1980 to July 1985 is presented. Complete records on 89 patients with 196 implants were obtained. A retrospective analysis with respect to capsular contracture was undertaken. Possible influential variables including age of patient, type of prosthesis, operative blood loss, use of local steroids, and site of insertion (i.e., submuscular versus subglandular) were considered. The site of implant insertion was the only statistically significant factor affecting capsular contracture. The incidence of capsular contracture was 9.4% with the submuscular approach and 58.0% with subglandular contracture. The followup time for the submuscular group was 17.4 months (range of 6–36 months) with the mean time of capsule contracture occurring 4.5 months after insertion. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss or elapsed operating time between the submuscular and the subglandular placements of the prosthesis. This study confirms the submuscular technique of augmentation mammoplasty as the most reliable method of reducing the high incidence of capsular contracture.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baker JL Jr: Classification of spherical contractures. Presented at the Aesthetic Breast Symposium, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1975
Burkhardt BR: 1985 supplement to augmentation mammoplasty and capsular contracture. An annotated review and guide to the literature. Tucson, Arizona, privately published, 1985
Carrico TJ, Cohen LK: Capsular contracture and steroid-related complications after augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg63:708, 1979
Dempsey WC, Latham WD: Subpectoral implants in augmentation mammoplasty. Preliminary Report. Plast Reconstr Surg42:515, 1968
Eyssen JE, Von Werssowetz AT, Middleton GD: Reconstruction of the breast using polyurethanecoated prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg73:415, 1984
Gayou R, Rudolph R: Capsular contraction around silicone mammary prostheses. Ann Plast Surg2:62, 1979
Herman S: The Meme Implant. Plast Reconstr Surg73:411, 1984
Mahler D, Hauben DJ: Retromammary versus retropectoral breast augmentation—A comparative study. Ann Plast Surg8:370, 1982
McGrath MH, Burkhardt BR: The safety and efficacy of breast implants for augmentation mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg74:550, 1984
McKinney P, Tresley G: Long-term comparison of patients with gel and saline mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg72:27, 1983
Oneal RM, Argenta LC: Late side effects related to inflatable breast prostheses containing soluble steroids. Plast Reconstr Surg69:641, 1982
Perrin ER: The use of soluble steroids within inflatable breast prostheses. Plast Reconstr Surg57:163, 1976
Regnault P: Partially submuscular breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg59:72, 1977
Scully SJ: Augmentation mammoplasty without contracture. Ann Plast Surg6:262, 1981
Shapiro MA, Rahall DO: Concepts and technique in using the new Meme prosthesis. Plast Reconstr Surg77:499, 1986
Vinnik CA: Spherical contracture of fibrous capsules around breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg58:555, 1976
Vistnes LM, Ksander GA, Koesk J: Study of encapsulation of silicone rubber implants in animals. A foreign-body reaction. Plast Reconstr Surg62:580, 1978
Williams JE: Invited Comment—“Review of closed capsulotomy complications,” by RP Gruber and HW Jones. Ann Plast Surg6:275, 1981
Williams JE: Experience with a large series of silastic breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg49:253, 1972
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vazquez, B., Given, K.S. & Courtney Houston, G. Breast augmentation: A review of subglandular and submuscular implantation. Aesth. Plast. Surg. 11, 101–105 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575494
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575494