title: Prospective outcome study of 225 cases of breast augmentation.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Despite the popularity of breast augmentation, limited information is available evaluating this procedure from the patient's perspective. No existing studies assess patient-reported data prospectively in a large number of consecutive patients with a high inclusion rate, as required by evidence-based medicine. This prospective outcome study was undertaken to obtain this information.
  
  
  METHODS
  Over a 5-year period, 281 consecutive women underwent breast augmentation performed by the author. In-person interviews were conducted at least 1 month after surgery among 225 women (response rate, 80.1 percent). All implants, predominantly saline-filled, were placed submuscularly using primarily inframammary incisions. Questions were asked in six categories: patient data, indications, recovery, results, complications, and psychological effects. A follow-up study evaluated subjective nipple numbness.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean implant volume was approximately 390 cc. The mean pain rating was 5.9 on a scale of 1 to 10. The mean time off work was 6.6 days. The mean result rating was 9.3 on a scale of 1 to 10. Expectations were met or exceeded in 98.1 percent of patients. Satisfactory size was achieved in 85.5 percent of patients and satisfactory firmness was achieved in 75.7 percent. The reported complication rate was 10.2 percent. Breast self-consciousness decreased from 86.2 percent to 12.6 percent (p < 0.001). The result rating correlated with a low rate of complications (p < 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Breast augmentation improves self-esteem (91.1 percent) and quality of life (64.3 percent). Nipple numbness is common (39.1 percent), but persistent numbness is unusual (2.3 percent). Almost all patients (98.7 percent) would repeat the surgery.
  
  
  METHODS
  Therapeutic, IV.
authors: Leawood, Kan. From the Swanson Center.
authors: Eric
authors: E
authors: Swanson
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001940:Breast / Q000601:surgery; D019928:Breast Implantation / Q000379:methods* / Q000523:psychology; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D006987:Hypesthesia / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000517:prevention & control; D008875:Middle Aged; D009558:Nipples / Q000601:surgery; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000517:prevention & control*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011788:Quality of Life; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
references: Murphy DK, Beckstrand M, Sarwer DB. A prospective, multi-center study of psychosocial outcomes after augmentation with Natrelle silicone-filled breast implants. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;62:118–121
references: Niechajev I, Jurell G, Lohjelm L. Prospective study comparing two brands of cohesive gel breast implants with anatomic shape: 5-year follow-up evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31:697–710
references: 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
references: Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–353
references: Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:619–625
references: Spear SL, Bulan EJ, Venturi ML. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:73e–81e
references: Adams WP Jr, Mallucci P. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:598e–612e
references: Baker JL Jr, Kolin IS, Bartlett ES. Psychosexual dynamics of patients undergoing mammary augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974;53:652–659
references: Sarwer DB, Gibbons LM, Magee L, et al. A prospective, multi-site investigation of patient satisfaction and psychosocial status following cosmetic surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2005;25:263–269
references: Park AJ, Chetty U, Watson AC. Patient satisfaction following insertion of silicone breast implants. Br J Plast Surg. 1996;49:515–518
references: Swanson E. Outcome analysis in 93 facial rejuvenation patients treated with a deep-plane face lift. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:823–834
references: Swanson E. Five-year prospective outcome study in 325 cosmetic breast surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(Suppl):112–113
references: Gutowski KA, Mesna GT, Cunningham BL. Saline-filled breast implants: A Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation multicenter outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1019–1027
references: Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Preoperative sizing in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1781–1787
references: Tebbetts JB. The greatest myths in breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:1895–1903
references: Brody GS. The perfect breast: Is it attainable? Does it exist?. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1500–1503
references: Dowden RV. Who decides the breast augmentation parameters?. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:1937–1940
references: 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. 2005;116:2005–2016
references: Adams WP Jr. The process of breast augmentation: Four sequential steps for optimizing outcomes for patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:1892–1900
references: Jewell ML, Jewell JL. A comparison of outcomes involving highly cohesive, form-stable breast implants from two manufacturers in patients undergoing primary breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2010;30:51–65
references: Weum S, de Weerd L, Kristiansen B. Form stability of the Style 410 anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant in subglandular breast augmentation evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:409–413
references: Hammond DC. Form stability of the Style 410 anatomically shaped cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implant in subglandular breast augmentation evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (Discussion). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:414–416
references: Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM. Breast sensation before and after plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976;58:1–13
references: Hetter GP. Satisfactions and dissatisfactions of patients with augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;64:151–155
references: Beale S, Hambert G, Lisper HO, Ohlsén L, Palm B. Augmentation mammaplasty: The surgical and psychological effects of the operation and prediction of the result. Ann Plast Surg. 1985;14:473–493
references: Young VL, Nemecek JR, Nemecek DA. The efficacy of breast augmentation: Breast size increase, patient satisfaction, and psychological effects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;94:958–969
references: Schlenz I, Kuzbari R, Gruber H, Holle J. The sensitivity of the nipple-areola complex: An anatomic study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:905–909
references: Strom SS, Baldwin BJ, Sigurdson AJ, Schusterman MA. Cosmetic saline breast implants: A survey of satisfaction, breast-feeding experience, cancer screening, and health. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1553–1557
references: Hedén P, Boné B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS. Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: Safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:1281–1287