Implant-Compensable Ptosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Polyurethane Breast Augmentation Alone Versus Augmentation-mastopexy in Patients with Mild Ptosis.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Sergio Burciaga Soto, Norman Alejandro Rendón Mejía
{"title":"Implant-Compensable Ptosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Polyurethane Breast Augmentation Alone Versus Augmentation-mastopexy in Patients with Mild Ptosis.","authors":"Sergio Burciaga Soto, Norman Alejandro Rendón Mejía","doi":"10.1007/s00266-026-06344-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with mild breast ptosis who decline mastopexy pose a clinical challenge. Polyurethane-coated implants possess tissue-adherence properties that may compensate for mild ptosis, but no study has systematically evaluated outcomes in this specific subgroup using defined selection criteria.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the clinical outcomes of breast augmentation with polyurethane-coated implants without mastopexy in patients with mild ptosis meeting Implant-Compensable Ptosis (ICP) classification criteria, compared to augmentation-mastopexy and augmentation in non-ptotic controls.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective three-arm cohort study of 90 consecutive patients (180 breasts) who underwent breast augmentation with polyurethane-coated implants: Group A (ICP, mild ptosis without mastopexy, n = 30), Group B (control, no ptosis, n = 30), and Group C (augmentation-mastopexy, n = 30).</p><p><strong>Primary outcome: </strong>BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts at 24 months.</p><p><strong>Secondary outcomes: </strong>compensation failure rate (composite of secondary mastopexy, NAC descent > 2 cm, or BREAST-Q decline ≥ 15 points), operative time, capsular contracture, complications, and patient satisfaction. Non-inferiority was assessed against a 5-point margin.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 24 months, mean BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts was 75.6 ± 9.5 (Group A), 79.3 ± 11.2 (Group B), and 77.4 ± 9.8 (Group C). The difference between Groups A and C was - 1.8 points (95% CI: - 7.1 to + 3.5; p = 0.494), consistent with non-inferior performance, although formal non-inferiority was not established due to limited statistical power (65% vs. planned 80%). Compensation success rate was 90.3% at 24 months (3 failures: 2 secondary mastopexy, 1 anatomical). Mean operative time was 36 min shorter in Group A versus C (66 vs. 102 min; p < 0.001). No capsular contracture Baker ≥ III occurred in any group. Mean NAC descent at 24 months was 0.82 ± 0.55 cm in Group A, significantly greater than Groups B and C (p < 0.001) but below the 2.0 cm failure threshold.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with mild ptosis meeting ICP criteria, breast augmentation with polyurethane implants alone achieves BREAST-Q satisfaction scores suggestive of non-inferiority to augmentation-mastopexy at 24 months, with a 90% compensation success rate and 35% shorter operative time. Implant volume (≤ 350 cc) emerges as a potential additional criterion. The ICP classification provides the first structured framework for patient selection, counseling, and outcome monitoring in this common clinical scenario. Prospective validation is warranted.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence iii: </strong>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 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-026-06344-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with mild breast ptosis who decline mastopexy pose a clinical challenge. Polyurethane-coated implants possess tissue-adherence properties that may compensate for mild ptosis, but no study has systematically evaluated outcomes in this specific subgroup using defined selection criteria.

Objectives: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of breast augmentation with polyurethane-coated implants without mastopexy in patients with mild ptosis meeting Implant-Compensable Ptosis (ICP) classification criteria, compared to augmentation-mastopexy and augmentation in non-ptotic controls.

Methods: Retrospective three-arm cohort study of 90 consecutive patients (180 breasts) who underwent breast augmentation with polyurethane-coated implants: Group A (ICP, mild ptosis without mastopexy, n = 30), Group B (control, no ptosis, n = 30), and Group C (augmentation-mastopexy, n = 30).

Primary outcome: BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts at 24 months.

Secondary outcomes: compensation failure rate (composite of secondary mastopexy, NAC descent > 2 cm, or BREAST-Q decline ≥ 15 points), operative time, capsular contracture, complications, and patient satisfaction. Non-inferiority was assessed against a 5-point margin.

Results: At 24 months, mean BREAST-Q Satisfaction with Breasts was 75.6 ± 9.5 (Group A), 79.3 ± 11.2 (Group B), and 77.4 ± 9.8 (Group C). The difference between Groups A and C was - 1.8 points (95% CI: - 7.1 to + 3.5; p = 0.494), consistent with non-inferior performance, although formal non-inferiority was not established due to limited statistical power (65% vs. planned 80%). Compensation success rate was 90.3% at 24 months (3 failures: 2 secondary mastopexy, 1 anatomical). Mean operative time was 36 min shorter in Group A versus C (66 vs. 102 min; p < 0.001). No capsular contracture Baker ≥ III occurred in any group. Mean NAC descent at 24 months was 0.82 ± 0.55 cm in Group A, significantly greater than Groups B and C (p < 0.001) but below the 2.0 cm failure threshold.

Conclusions: In patients with mild ptosis meeting ICP criteria, breast augmentation with polyurethane implants alone achieves BREAST-Q satisfaction scores suggestive of non-inferiority to augmentation-mastopexy at 24 months, with a 90% compensation success rate and 35% shorter operative time. Implant volume (≤ 350 cc) emerges as a potential additional criterion. The ICP classification provides the first structured framework for patient selection, counseling, and outcome monitoring in this common clinical scenario. Prospective validation is warranted.

Level of evidence iii: 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 .

植入物可补偿上睑下垂:一项回顾性队列研究,比较轻度上睑下垂患者单独使用聚氨酯隆胸术与隆胸术。
背景:轻度乳房下垂患者的乳房下垂是一个临床挑战。聚氨酯涂层植入物具有组织粘附特性,可以补偿轻度上睑下垂,但没有研究系统地评估这一特定亚组使用确定的选择标准的结果。目的:评价满足种植体可补偿性上睑下垂(ICP)分类标准的轻度上睑下垂患者采用聚氨酯涂层假体隆胸的临床效果,并与乳房隆胸和非上睑下垂对照组进行比较。方法:回顾性三组队列研究90例(180个乳房)连续使用聚氨酯包覆假体隆胸的患者:A组(ICP,轻度上睑下垂,无乳房固定术,n = 30), B组(对照组,无上睑下垂,n = 30)和C组(隆胸-乳房固定术,n = 30)。主要结局:乳房24个月时的BREAST-Q满意度。次要结局:代偿失败率(二次乳房切除术、NAC下降bbb2cm或BREAST-Q下降≥15分的综合结果)、手术时间、包膜挛缩、并发症、患者满意度。非劣效性以5分的差值进行评估。结果:24个月时,乳房的平均BREAST-Q满意度分别为75.6±9.5 (A组)、79.3±11.2 (B组)和77.4±9.8 (C组)。A组和C组之间的差异为- 1.8点(95% CI: - 7.1至+ 3.5;p = 0.494),与非劣效性表现一致,尽管由于统计效力有限(65% vs.计划的80%),未建立正式的非劣效性。24个月时补偿成功率为90.3%(3例失败:2例继发性乳房固定术,1例解剖性乳房固定术)。A组平均手术时间比C组短36分钟(66比102分钟);p结论:在符合ICP标准的轻度上睑下垂患者中,单独使用聚氨酯假体隆胸在24个月时达到breast - q满意度评分,表明隆胸术的代偿成功率为90%,手术时间缩短了35%。种植体体积(≤350cc)成为潜在的附加标准。ICP分类为这种常见临床情况下的患者选择、咨询和结果监测提供了第一个结构化框架。前瞻性验证是必要的。证据等级iii:本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据等级。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www.springer.com/00266。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
479
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书