Breast Augmentation in the Transfemale Patient: Comprehensive Principles for Planning and Obtaining Ideal Results.
Adult
Algorithms
Breast Implantation
/ adverse effects
Breast Implants
/ adverse effects
Critical Pathways
Esthetics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gender Dysphoria
/ psychology
Humans
Male
Patient Care Planning
Patient Satisfaction
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Retrospective Studies
Sex Reassignment Surgery
/ adverse effects
Transgender Persons
/ psychology
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
entrez:
28
5
2020
pubmed:
28
5
2020
medline:
1
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A growing number of transgender women present to plastic surgeons seeking breast augmentation. Despite some advocating their technical similarity, the authors have found substantially different planning and techniques are needed to obtain aesthetic results in transgender patients versus cosmetic breast augmentation. The authors sought to develop an approach for operative planning and technique to elucidate these differences and obtain consistent results. All patients who underwent breast augmentation at the Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender Health were included in this study. Anthropometric assessments were obtained and comparative statistics between operative and nonoperative cohorts were calculated. Outcomes were analyzed and a patient-reported survey was performed to evaluate patient satisfaction. Fifty-nine consecutive transfemale patients presented for evaluation. Anthropometric measurements included base width (median, 15.0 ± 2.1 cm), notch-to-nipple distance (median, 22.0 cm), nipple-to-midline distance (median, 12.0 cm), areolar diameter (median, 3.5 ± 1.5 cm), and upper pole pinch (mean, 1.8 ± 1.1 cm). Thirty-six patients underwent augmentation mammaplasty. Postoperative complications (8.3 percent) included a minor hematoma and grade III capsular contracture in two patients. Patients were asked to complete a brief outcomes survey and reported an improvement in psychosocial well-being and high satisfaction rate (100 percent) with the overall cosmetic result. Transgender female patients represent a unique patient population requiring special consideration of anatomical differences in key planning decisions. The authors delineate the first systematic algorithm that addresses these differences, emphasizing maneuvers such as routine inframammary fold lowering. This can allow experienced augmentation surgeons to obtain excellent aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes in this population. As with cosmetic breast augmentation, patient satisfaction rates are high. Therapeutic, IV.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A growing number of transgender women present to plastic surgeons seeking breast augmentation. Despite some advocating their technical similarity, the authors have found substantially different planning and techniques are needed to obtain aesthetic results in transgender patients versus cosmetic breast augmentation. The authors sought to develop an approach for operative planning and technique to elucidate these differences and obtain consistent results.
METHODS
All patients who underwent breast augmentation at the Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender Health were included in this study. Anthropometric assessments were obtained and comparative statistics between operative and nonoperative cohorts were calculated. Outcomes were analyzed and a patient-reported survey was performed to evaluate patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Fifty-nine consecutive transfemale patients presented for evaluation. Anthropometric measurements included base width (median, 15.0 ± 2.1 cm), notch-to-nipple distance (median, 22.0 cm), nipple-to-midline distance (median, 12.0 cm), areolar diameter (median, 3.5 ± 1.5 cm), and upper pole pinch (mean, 1.8 ± 1.1 cm). Thirty-six patients underwent augmentation mammaplasty. Postoperative complications (8.3 percent) included a minor hematoma and grade III capsular contracture in two patients. Patients were asked to complete a brief outcomes survey and reported an improvement in psychosocial well-being and high satisfaction rate (100 percent) with the overall cosmetic result.
CONCLUSIONS
Transgender female patients represent a unique patient population requiring special consideration of anatomical differences in key planning decisions. The authors delineate the first systematic algorithm that addresses these differences, emphasizing maneuvers such as routine inframammary fold lowering. This can allow experienced augmentation surgeons to obtain excellent aesthetic and patient-reported outcomes in this population. As with cosmetic breast augmentation, patient satisfaction rates are high.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic, IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32459763
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006819
pii: 00006534-202006000-00001
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1343-1353Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Kanhai R, Hage J, Asscheman H, Mulder JW. Augmentation mammaplasty in male to female transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:542–549; discussion 550–551.
Kanhai RC, Hage JJ, Karim RB. Augmentation mammaplasty in male-to-female trans-sexuals: Facts and figures from Amsterdam. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2001;35:203–206.
McCarthy CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF, et al. The magnitude of effect of cosmetic breast augmentation on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:218–223.
Alderman A, Pusic A, Murphy DK. Prospective analysis of primary breast augmentation on body image using the BREAST-Q: Results from a nationwide study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:954e–960e.
Seal LJ, Franklin S, Richards C, Shishkareva A, Sinclaire C, Barrett J. Predictive markers for mammoplasty and a comparison of side effect profiles in transwomen taking various hormonal regimens. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:4422–4428.
Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: An Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017;102:3869–3903.
Coleman E, Bockting W, Botzer M, et al.; The World Professional Association for Transgender Health.Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people, version 7. Int J Transgend. 2012;13:165–232.
Bellinger CG, Goulian D. Secondary surgery in transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;51:628–631.
Ratnam SS, Lim SM. Augmentation mammoplasty for the male transsexual. Singapore Med J. 1982;23:107–109.
Kanhai RC, Hage JJ, Mulder JW. Long-term outcome of augmentation mammaplasty in male-to-female transsexuals: A questionnaire survey of 107 patients. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:209–211.
Weigert R, Frison E, Sessiecq Q, Al Mutairi K, Casoli V. Patient satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being after breast augmentation in male-to-female transsexuals. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1421–1429.
Nauta AC, Baltrusch KM, Heston AL, et al. Differences in chest measurements between the cis-female and trans-female chest exposed to estrogen and its implications for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019;7:e2167.
Adams WP Jr, Mckee D. Matching the implant to the breast: A systematic review of implant size selection systems for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:987–994.
Wan D, Rohrich RJ. Modern primary breast augmentation: Best recommendations for best results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142:933e–946e.
Salibian AA, Frey JD, Karp NS. Strategies and considerations in selecting between subpectoral and prepectoral breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019;8:11–18.
Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Bioengineered breast: Concept, technique, and preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:415–421.
de Boer M, van der Sluis WB, de Boer JP, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in a transgender woman. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:NP83–NP87.
Khincha PP, Pikturnaite J, Mahajan AL. Management of the lateral breast. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1965.
Kasem A, Wazir U, Headon H, Mokbel K. Breast lipofilling: A review of current practice. Arch Plast Surg. 2015;42:126–130.
Bengston BP. Spear SL, Willey SC, Robb GL, Hammond DC, Nahabedian MY. The inframammary fold: Histologic and anatomic description, classification and definitions, and options for repair and reinforcement. In: Surgery of the Breast: Principles and Art. 2011:3rd ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1510–1515.
Tebbetts JB, Adams WP. Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: The high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(Suppl):35S–45S.
Hartley RL, Stone JP, Temple-Oberle C. Breast cancer in transgender patients: A systematic review. Part 1: Male to female. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1455–1462.