Shared more. Cited more. Safe forever.
    • advanced search
    • submit works
    • about
    • help
    • contact us
    • login
    View Item 
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • Health Sciences Research Day (MU)
    • 2009 Health Sciences Research Day (MU)
    • View Item
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • Health Sciences Research Day (MU)
    • 2009 Health Sciences Research Day (MU)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    advanced searchsubmit worksabouthelpcontact us

    Browse

    All of MOspaceCommunities & CollectionsDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis SemesterThis CollectionDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis Semester

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular AuthorsStatistics by Referrer

    Combined augmentation mastoplexy [abstract]

    Atashroo, David
    Eagan, Spencer L.
    View/Open
    [PDF] CombinedAugmentationMastopexy[abstract].pdf (19.28Kb)
    Date
    2010-02
    Contributor
    University of Missouri--Columbia. School of Medicine
    Format
    Abstract
    Metadata
    [+] Show full item record
    Abstract
    Background: First described by Gonzales-Ullo in 1960, combined augmentation/mastopexy has increased in popularity amongst patients interested in a single stage procedure that reduces cost and decreases recovery time. The controversy surrounding the combined technique stems from the fact that augmentation and mastopexy represent conflicting procedures: augmentation expands and stretches breast tissue while mastopexy reduces the size of the skin envelope. Although the combined procedure has been described, there are few large studies comparing a single surgeon's outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 320 consecutive patients from 2000-2009 who underwent combined augmentation/mastopexy (113), augmentation (194), and mastopexy (13). Data was collected and compared among the three groups in terms of pre-operative risk factors and ptosis grade, operative technique, implant size, and post-operative complications. Results: The most common complications for the combined procedure were areolar widening (17.7%), hypertrophic scarring (8.8%), decreased nipple sensation (7.1%), implant malposition (6.2%), and hematoma formation (6.2%). The tissue related complications were similarly higher in the combined and mastopexy groups, but the implant related complications such as implant malposition, capsular contracture, and double bubble occurred less frequently in the combined group than with augmentation alone. Conclusion: Although it has often been suggested that a combined procedure carries a risk higher than performing augmentation and mastopexy individually, our results indicate that a combined procedure can produce excellent results with decreased implant related complications. Given the notable benefits of a combined procedure, we believe that that a single stage augmentation/mastopexy is the preferred technique for the experienced surgeon.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10355/6196
    Rights
    OpenAccess.
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
    Collections
    • 2009 Health Sciences Research Day (MU)

    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems
     

     


    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems