Can It Be Safe and Aesthetic? An Eight-year Retrospective Review of Mastopexy with Concurrent Breast Augmentation

BACKGROUND: The safety of concurrently performing mastopexy and breast augmentation is controversial, due to the risk of breast tissue and nipple neurovascular compromise and overall potential high complications rates. This article describes a concurrent procedure of augmentation with implants and a “Tailor-Tack” mastopexy that consistently achieves an aesthetically pleasing breast with acceptable complication rates. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive breast augmentations performed concurrently with mastopexy using the “Tailor-Tack” technique by the 2 senior authors (M.M. and O.T.) over an 8-year period. Independent variables were patient demographics, surgical approach, implant type, shape, size, duration of follow-up, and complications. Complications were categorized as “early” (ie, first 30 days) or “late” (ie, after 30 days). Potential early complications include hematoma, skin necrosis, infection, and nipple loss. Potential late complications include recurrent breast ptosis, poor shape of the nipple areolar complex, hypertrophic scarring, implant rupture, capsular contracture, decreased nipple sensation, implant extrusion, reoperation, and scar revisions. The key principle of the technique is to place the breast implant in the dual plane first, and then perform the tailor tacking of the skin for the mastopexy second. RESULTS: Fifty-six consecutive patients underwent augmentation and mastopexy over 8 years with this technique. The average age of the studied patients was 41.2 years. The average follow-up time period was 2.1 years (±8.9 months). Fifty-four patients (96.4%) had implants placed through the periareolar approach, 2 patients (3.6%) had implants placed via the inframammary approach. All implants were placed in a dual plane. Fifty-two patients (92.9%) received silicone implants and 4 patients (7.1%) received saline implants. Patient preference determined implant choice. All but 5 patients had textured implants. Average implant size was 277 cm(3) (range 120–800 cm(3)). Ten patients had complications (17.9%). Complications included hypertrophic scarring in 5 (8.9%) patients; poor nipple-areola complex shape in 4 patients (7.1%); implant ruptures in 3 patients (5.4%); capsular contracture in 3 patients (5.4%); and recurrent ptosis in 2 patients (3.6%). There were no reported early complications such as nipple loss, breast skin necrosis, decreased nipple sensation, implant infections, or extrusions. However, 6 patients (10.7%) required return trips to the operating room for revisions, and 1 patient (1.8%) had a nipple areolar complex scar revised in the office, yielding a 12.5% surgical revision rate for the late complications. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to concurrently perform mastopexy and breast augmentation. In our 8-year review, there were no early catastrophic complications such as skin loss, nipple loss, implant extrusion, or infection. The complications that occurred were the same complications known to occur with the independent performance of mastopexy alone or breast augmentation alone, and they occurred at rates comparable to or less than the national averages for those procedures when they are performed independently. The paramount principle for the success of this technique is to first adjust breast volume and then perform an intraoperatively determined skin resection to fit the new breast volume.