Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Revision Augmentation Mastopexy: Indications, Operations, and Outcomes

Spear, Scott L. MD; Low, Mervin MD; Ducic, Ivica MD, PhD

doi: 10.1097/
Original Articles

In the absence of any published information on the indications, frequency, and outcomes of revision augmentation/mastopexy, an 8-year retrospective review was undertaken of all patients undergoing revision of a previous augmentation/mastopexy in the senior author’s practice. The data collected included original implant type, location and mastopexy type, indication for revision, interval from original surgery, new implant type, location, and associated corrective surgical procedures. A simultaneous review was also performed of all primary augmentation/mastopexies done during the same period.

Twenty patients underwent revision of 34 previously performed augmentation/mastopexies. Five patients underwent revisions of a prior revision. Fourteen were bilateral, while 6 were unilateral, for a total of 34 breasts. Forty patients underwent primary augmentation/mastopexy during the same period. Among the revisions, 10 implants were originally subglandular, while 24 were either partly or totally submuscular. Twelve of the previous mastopexies were periareolar, 2 were vertical, and 20 were of the inverted T-type. The indications for revision included capsular contracture in 11 of 20 (55%) patients, nipple ptosis in 11 of 20 (55%) patients, implant malposition in 7 of 20 (35%) patients, dissatisfaction with implant size in 6 of 20 (30%) patients, poor scar in 5 of 20 (25%) patients, breast ptosis in 4 of 20 (20%) patients, nipple malposition in 2 of 20 (10%) patients, and patient preference in 1 of 20 (5%) patients. Most patients had 2 or more indications for revision. The average duration to revision was 7 years. In 13 of 20 (65%) patients, no change in implant type was made. The remainder had exchanges to a different type. In 12 of 20 (60%) patients, no change in implant location was made, whereas 8 of 20 (40%) patients had a change to the subpectoral or dual plane position. In 18 of 20 (90%) patients, the revision included the same type of mastopexy, while in 2 of 20 (10%) patients, the type of mastopexy was changed. Corrective surgical procedures performed included repeat mastopexy, capsulectomy, change of implant type, change of implant location, change of implant size, capsulotomy, capsulorrhaphy, and scar revision. To date, all of the patients are satisfied with their appearance. Follow-up ranged from 2 months to 4 years.

Revision augmentation mastopexy is not an uncommon procedure, occurring half as often as primary augmentation/mastopexy in our series. There were 8 common indications for revision, with capsular contracture and recurrent ptosis being the most common. Eight surgical procedures, in various combinations, were performed during revision, with repeat mastopexy being the most common.

An eight-year retrospective review of 20 augmentation/mastopexy revisions in the author’s practice demonstrated the reason for revision to be capsular contracture (55%), nipple ptosis (55%), implant malposition (35%), size dissatisfaction (30%), unfavorable scar (25%), breast ptosis (20%), nipple malposition (10%), and patient preference (1%). Average duration to revision was seven years, and revisional procedures included repeat mastopexy, capsulectomy, change of implant type, size or location, capsulotomy, capsulorrhaphy, and scar revision.

From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC

Received December 12, 2003 and accepted for publication, after revision, April 24, 2003.

Reprints: Scott L. Spear, MD, Division of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC 20007.

© 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.