Comparison Of Endoscopic Transaxillary And Peri-areolar Approaches In Breast Augmentation With Smooth Implants.

introductionThe most common surgical approaches for breast augmentation in Asia have traditionally been peri-areolar and transaxillary. In recent years, transaxillary approach has become increasingly popular with the use of endoscopic methods, which result in safer and better outcomes. In the literature, there are no comparison studies of endoscopic transaxillary and peri-areolar approaches.

methodsThis prospective study compared the outcomes of 275 women undergoing primary breast augmentation (endoscopic transaxillary n=205, peri-areolar n=70). All procedures were performed by a single surgeon using smooth round silicone implants and dual-plane pockets from April 2013 to March 2016. Every patient was monitored for a minimum of 4 years for minor and major complications.

resultsTypes and percentage of patients experiencing minor complications among transaxillary and peri-areolar patients were localized fluid collection in the wound (1% transaxillary, 7.1% peri-areolar), hypertrophic scarring or keloids (1% transaxillary, 8.6% peri-areolar), and areolar and nipple deformity (0% transaxillary, 8.6% peri-areolar). Major complications were postoperative bleeding (0% transaxillary, 2.9% peri-areolar) and capsular contracture, Baker Group III or IV (1% transaxillary, 5.7% peri-areolar).

conclusionsEndoscopic transaxillary breast augmentation had better outcomes, with lower rates of complications than the peri-areolar approach. Reviewing the literature, our study is the first direct comparison of peri-areolar and endoscopic transaxillary incisions using smooth implants. With the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with certain macrotexture implants, endoscopic transaxillary approach using smooth implants is the safer technique and very good alternative choice for Asian women who do not want any scarring on their breasts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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.