Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Mahler Dan M.D.; Hauben, Daniel J. M.D.
Annals of Plastic Surgery: May 1982
Original Articles: PDF Only
Buy

Repeated postaugmentation capsular formation following retromammary silicone implantation led surgeons to seek an alternative procedure. In 1968 Dempsey and Latham first reported the “subpectoral” route for location of the implant. Since then little data has been published comparing retromammary and retropectoral breast augmentation.

The aim of this study is to compare the two procedures in terms of various factors affecting the physical and emotional well-being of the breast-augmented patient: breast firmness (according to Baker's classification), patient approval, the surgeon's judgment, and the husband's or partner's evaluation are all weighed.

The study included 40 patients, 20 of whom underwent retromammary augmentation, the remaining 20 retropectoral augmentation. All 40 responded to a questionnaire designed to elicit comparative data. A detailed analysis of the results was made, leading to the following conclusions: first, patient approval was largely the same in the two groups, although slightly higher in the retropectoral group. However, both surgeons and husbands preferred the retropectoral method of prosthesis insertion.

© Williams & Wilkins 1982. All Rights Reserved.