Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Simultaneous Augmentation Mammoplasty and Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy for Enhanced Cosmesis and Efficacy

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In this era of expanding life expectancy and popularity of aesthetic breast surgeries, more women are likely to live more years with their augmented breasts. Thus, consistent attention to general breast health is crucial, and preoperative ultrasound is helpful to locate suspicious lesions. In this study, we present a combinative procedure of augmentation mammoplasty and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB).

Methods

From January of 2018 to December of 2019, a total of 102 patients received simultaneous augmentation mammoplasty and VABB in our institute. Only patients of primary augmentation mammoplasty who received VABB on unilateral breasts were included. We sought to investigate the results of each breast and safety of adding VABB before performing augmentation within the same incision.

Results

Among 204 breasts and implants, 28.43% were done via endoscopic transaxillary approach and 71.57% via inframammary approach. The mean implant volume was 329.34 ± 44.79 ml, and the mean follow-up period was 14.23 ± 4.64 months. All of the complication rates exhibited no statistically significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusion

Simultaneous augmentation mammoplasty and VABB prevented unnecessary scars and pain, and the complication rates did not statistically differ from those of augmentation only group. This co-operation is a safe and simple method potentially beneficial to many women interested in breast surgery.

Level of Evidence III

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee DW, Kim SJ, Kim H (2019) Endoscopic transaxillary versus inframammary approaches for breast augmentation using shaped implants: a matched case-control study. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(3):563–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ozalp B, Aydinol M (2017) Breast augmentation combining fat injection and breast implants in patients with atrophied breasts. Ann Plast Surg 78(6):623–628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heidekrueger PI, Sinno S, Hidalgo DA, Colombo M, Broer PN (2018) Current trends in breast augmentation: an international analysis. Aesthet Surg J 38(2):133–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Breast cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2008. GLOBOCAN website. http://www.globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.asp

  5. Rojas K, Stuckey A (2016) Breast cancer epidemiology and risk factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol 59(4):651–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Feuer EJ, Wun LM, Boring CC, Flanders WD, Timmel MJ, Tong T (1993) The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85(11):892–897

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Park HL, Hong J (2014) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast cancer. Gland Surg 3(2):120–127

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, Torrente J (2015) Screening breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(2):234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berg WA, Gilbreath PL (2000) Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 214(1):59–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998) Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US–diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 207(1):191–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. McIntosh SA, Horgan K (2008) Augmentation mammoplasty: effect on diagnosis of breast cancer. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61(2):124–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Etzioni R, Urban N, Ramsey S, McIntosh M, Schwartz S, Reid B, Radich J, Anderson G, Hartwell L (2003) The case for early detection. Nat Rev Cancer 3(4):243–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Qu S, Zhang W, Zhang J, Zhang Q, Lu R, Wang N (2019) The vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system is an effective treatment strategy for breast lumps after augmentation with autologous fat grafting. Aesthet Plast Surg 43(5):1152–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakano S, Imawari Y, Mibu A, Otsuka M, Oinuma T (2018) Differentiating vacuum-assisted breast biopsy from core needle biopsy: is it necessary? Br J Radiol 91(1092):20180250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang T, Zhu L (2020) Mammotome-assisted removal with minimal incision of large juvenile fibroadenoma of breast: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore) 99(10):e19442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grady I, Gorsuch H, Wilburn-Bailey S (2008) Long-term outcome of benign fibroadenomas treated by ultrasound-guided percutaneous excision. Breast J 14(3):275–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bozzini A, Cassano E, Raciti D, Disalvatore D, Pala O, Vingiani A, Renne G (2018) Analysis of efficacy and accuracy of 2 vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices: mammotome and elite. Clin Breast Cancer 18(6):e1277–e1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sperber F, Blank A, Metser U, Flusser G, Klausner JM, Lev-Chelouche D (2003) Diagnosis and treatment of breast fibroadenomas by ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy. Arch Surg 138(7):796–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sie A, Bryan DC, Gaines V, Killebrew LK, Kim CH, Morrison CC, Poller WR, Romilly AP, Schilling K, Sung JH (2006) Multicenter evaluation of the breast lesion excision system, a percutaneous, vacuum-assisted, intact-specimen breast biopsy device. Cancer 107(5):945–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson AT, Henry-Tillman RS, Smith LF, Harshfield D, Korourian S, Brown H, Lane S, Colvert M, Klimberg VS (2002) Percutaneous excisional breast biopsy. Am J Surg 184(6):550–554 (discussion 554)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Povoski SP, Jimenez RE (2007) A comprehensive evaluation of the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted Mammotome(R) system for ultrasound-guided diagnostic biopsy and selective excision of breast lesions. World J Surg Oncol 5:83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fang M, Liu G, Luo G, Wu T (2019) Feasibility and safety of image-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of 20,000 population from 36 longitudinal studies. Int Wound J 16(6):1506–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pagni P, Spunticchia F, Barberi S, Caprio G, Paglicci C (2014) Use of core needle biopsy rather than fine-needle aspiration cytology in the diagnostic approach of breast cancer. Case Rep Oncol 7(2):452–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yi W, Xu F, Zou Q, Tang Z (2013) Completely removing solitary intraductal papillomas using the Mammotome system guided by ultrasonography is feasible and safe. World J Surg 37(11):2613–2617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Steiert AE, Boyce M, Sorg H (2013) Capsular contracture by silicone breast implants: possible causes, biocompatibility, and prophylactic strategies. Med Dev (Auckl) 6:211–218

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chong SJ, Deva AK (2015) Understanding the etiology and prevention of capsular contracture: translating science into practice. Clin Plast Surg 42(4):427–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Adams WP Jr, Culbertson EJ, Deva AK, Magnusson RM, Layt C, Jewell ML, Mallucci P, Heden P (2017) Macrotextured breast implants with defined steps to minimize bacterial contamination around the device: experience in 42,000 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(3):427–431

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevens WG, Calobrace MB, Harrington J, Alizadeh K, Zeidler KR, d’Incelli RC (2016) Nine-year core study data for Sientra’s FDA-approved round and shaped implants with high-strength cohesive silicone gel. Aesthet Surg J 36(4):404–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Spear SL, Murphy DK (2014) Natrelle round silicone breast implants: core Study results at 10 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 133(6):1354–1361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Caplin DA (2014) Indications for the use of MemoryShape breast implants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: long-term clinical outcomes of shaped versus round silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(3 Suppl):27S–37S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP, Murphy DK (2015) Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J 35(2):145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Blount AL, Martin MD, Lineberry KD, Kettaneh N, Alfonso DR (2013) Capsular contracture rate in a low-risk population after primary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J 33(4):516–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH (2013) Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(9):1165–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stevens WG, Nahabedian MY, Calobrace MB, Harrington JL, Capizzi PJ, Cohen R, d’Incelli RC, Beckstrand M (2013) Risk factor analysis for capsular contracture: a 5-year Sientra study analysis using round, smooth, and textured implants for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(5):1115–1123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tanner B (2018) Low rate of capsular contracture in a series of 214 consecutive primary and revision breast augmentations using microtextured implants. JPRAS Open 15:66–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Quiros MC, Bolanos MC, Fassero JJ (2019) Six-year prospective outcomes of primary breast augmentation with nano surface implants. Aesthet Surg J 39(5):495–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A, Seno A, Mileto D, Paganelli A, Sulaiman H, Payne M, Maurovich-Horvat L (2018) Preliminary 3-year evaluation of experience with silk surface and velvet surface motiva silicone breast implants: a single-center experience with 5813 consecutive breast augmentation cases. Aesthet Surg J 38(suppl_2):S62–S73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Adams WP Jr, Rios JL, Smith SJ (2006) Enhancing patient outcomes in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery using triple antibiotic breast irrigation: six-year prospective clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7 Suppl):46S–52S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fine RE, Israel PZ, Walker LC, Corgan KR, Greenwald LV, Berenson JE, Boyd BA, Oliver MK, McClure T, Elberfeld J (2001) A prospective study of the removal rate of imaged breast lesions by an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy probe system. Am J Surg 182(4):335–340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Baez E, Huber A, Vetter M, Hackeloer BJ (2003) Minimal invasive complete excision of benign breast tumors using a three-dimensional ultrasound-guided mammotome vacuum device. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21(3):267–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Il Hwan Byun and Hyun Kook Koo have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, DA Plastic Surgery, 125 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea

    Il Hwan Byun, Hyun Kook Koo, Soo Jung Kim & Sang Woo Lee

  2. Department of General Surgery, DA Plastic Surgery, 125 Teheran-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea

    Hye-Jin Kim

Authors
  1. Il Hwan Byun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyun Kook Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soo Jung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hye-Jin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sang Woo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang Woo Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights, or Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent form was signed for all the patients who underwent surgery.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Byun, I.H., Koo, H.K., Kim, S.J. et al. Simultaneous Augmentation Mammoplasty and Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy for Enhanced Cosmesis and Efficacy. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 2041–2047 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01858-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01858-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation