Rippling over the superior pole of the breasts, but not over the inferior portion, was subglandular breast augmentation to be less in subpectoral augmentations than in subglandular augmentations. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify all patients who underwent primary subglandular breast augmentation through an inframammary incision with the Style implant. The most frequent indication for reoperation was revision breast surgery for inadequate cosmetic result 3.
Results of subglandular versus subpectoral augmentation over time: one surgeon's observations.
Advocates of subglandular and subpectoral augmentations, respectively, each feel that the benefits of their method outweigh any drawbacks. Patient demographics and implant characteristics were documented. An initial satisfactory result by evaluation or patient declaration was a prerequisite for inclusion. Patients were examined both in the relaxed position and with chest muscles contracted.
This device may possess certain inherent advantages over other breast implants currently available; however, there are also several problems associated with textured anatomic subglandular breast augmentation that must be considered when deciding on the subglandular breast approach to breast augmentation for a patient. A comparative analysis of subglandular and subpectoral augmentation results was undertaken over a decade to compare long-term augmentation. Subpectoral augmentation provided better concealment of upper pole rippling than subglandular augmentation, but at the price of higher rates of muscle contraction-induced deformities and implant displacement. The most common complication was malrotation, experienced by 5.