title: Breast implant procedures under conscious sedation: a 6-year experience in 461 consecutive patients.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Breast implant procedures are commonly performed using general anesthesia; however, patient apprehension, the potential for improved safety, lower costs, and faster recovery times have increased interest in the use of conscious sedation in plastic surgery. The authors examined the safety and efficacy of breast implant procedures performed under conscious sedation over a 6-year period using their standardized institutional protocol.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between 2002 and 2008, 461 consecutive patients underwent breast implant procedures under conscious sedation using a protocol of preoperative intravenous diazepam along with intraoperative midazolam, fentanyl, and local anesthetic. All operative and follow-up data were recorded. Augmentation mammaplasty patients were further analyzed for conscious sedation medication dosing.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The study population was divided into two groups (years 1 to 3 and years 4 to 6 of the study period) to analyze changes to the authors' regimen over time. In years 4 to 6, higher preoperative doses of diazepam (p = 0.01) allowed more effective local anesthesia administration, thereby reducing intraoperative fentanyl requirements (p < 0.0001). Midazolam doses and operating times did not differ significantly between groups. No patient required conversion to a deeper method of anesthesia. The overall complication rate was 4.34 percent.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The authors' study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of conscious sedation in breast implant procedures. Higher preoperative doses of diazepam have significantly reduced fentanyl requirements, resulting in shorter recovery times, decreased postoperative nausea/vomiting, and elimination of unintended admissions. These benefits are obtained without increasing operative times or complications. The authors conclude that conscious sedation is the preferred method of anesthesia for most patients undergoing breast implant procedures.
authors: Chicago, Ill.; and Seattle, Wash. From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Washington.
authors: Michael S
authors: MS
authors: Gart
authors: Jason H
authors: JH
authors: Ko
authors: Kamaldeep S
authors: KS
authors: Heyer
authors: Thomas A
authors: TA
authors: Mustoe
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000556:Ambulatory Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous / Q000008:administration & dosage; D000779:Anesthetics, Local / Q000008:administration & dosage; D019928:Breast Implantation / Q000379:methods*; D016292:Procedural Sedation / Q000379:methods*; D003975:Diazepam / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D005260:Female; D005283:Fentanyl / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008874:Midazolam / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D008875:Middle Aged; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000517:prevention & control; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D018686:Anesthetics, Intravenous; D000779:Anesthetics, Local; D003975:Diazepam; D008874:Midazolam; D005283:Fentanyl
references: Byun MY, Fine NA, Lee JY, Mustoe TA. The clinical outcome of abdominoplasty performed under conscious sedation: Increased use of fentanyl correlated with longer stay in outpatient unit. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;103:1260–1266
references: Cinnella G, Meola S, Portincasa A, et al. Sedation analgesia during office-based plastic surgery procedures:Comparison of two opioid regimens. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:2263–2270
references: Meridy HW. Criteria for selection of ambulatory surgical patients and guidelines for anesthetic management: A retrospective study of 1553 cases. Anesth Analg. 1982;61:921–926
references: Iverson RE. Sedation and analgesia in ambulatory settings. American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia in Ambulatory Settings. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1559–1564
references: Baker TJ, Gordon HL. Midazolam (Versed) in ambulatory surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82:244–246
references: Marcus JR, Few JW, Chao JD, Fine NA, Mustoe TA. The prevention of emesis in plastic surgery: A randomized, prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:2487–2494
references: Marcus JR, Tyrone JW, Few JW, Fine NA, Mustoe TA. Optimization of conscious sedation in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1338–1345
references: Pratt JM Jr. Analgesics and sedation in plastic surgery. Clin Plast Surg. 1985;12:73–81
references: Handel N, Jensen JA, Black Q, Waisman JR, Silverstein MJ. The fate of breast implants: A critical analysis of complications and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96:1521–1533
references: Rezai A, Singh SR. The use of well-monitored sedation anesthesia for breast augmentation. Aesthet Surg J. 2004;24:277–279
references: Shapiro FE. Anesthesia for outpatient cosmetic surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21:704–710
references: Domino KB, Anderson EA, Polissar NL, Posner KL. Comparative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:1370–1379
references: Kapur PA. The big “little problem.”. Anesth Analg. 1991;73:243–245
references: Kenny GN. Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia. 1994;49(Suppl):6–10
references: Hoka S, Yamaura K, Takenaka T, Takahashi S. Propofol-induced increase in vascular capacitance is due to inhibition of sympathetic vasoconstrictive activity. Anesthesiology. 1998;89:1495–1500
references: Muzi M, Berens RA, Kampine JP, Ebert TJ. Venodilation contributes to propofol-mediated hypotension in humans. Anesth Analg. 1992;74:877–883
references: Hanemann MS Jr, Grotting JC. Evaluation of preoperative risk factors and complication rates in cosmetic breast surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:537–540
references: Keyes GR, Singer R, Iverson RE, et al. Analysis of outpatient surgery center safety using an internet-based quality improvement and peer review program. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1760–1770
references: Colque A, Eisemann ML. Breast augmentation and augmentation-mastopexy with local anesthesia and intravenous sedation. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32:303–307
references: Keyes GR. Commentary on: Breast augmentation and augmentation-mastopexy with local anesthesia and intravenous sedation. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32:308–309
references: Siclovan HR, Jomah JA. Advantages and outcomes in subfascial breast augmentation: A two-year review of experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32:426–431
references: Tijerina VN, Saenz RA, Garcia-Guerrero J. Experience of 1000 cases on subfascial breast augmentation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34:16–22
references: Góes JC, Landecker A. Optimizing outcomes in breast augmentation: Seven years of experience with the subfascial plane. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003;27:178–184
references: Hunstad JP, Webb LS. Subfascial breast augmentation: A comprehensive experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2010;34:365–373
references: Brown T. Subfascial breast augmentation: Is there any advantage over the submammary plane?. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:566–569
references: Baxter RA. Subfascial breast augmentation: Theme and variations. Aesthet Surg J. 2005;25:447–453
references: Benito-Ruiz J, Raigosa M, Manzano M, Salvador L. Subfascial breast augmentation: Thickness of the pectoral fascia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:31e–32e
references: Graf RM, Bernardes A, Rippel R, Araujo LR, Damasio RC, Auersvald A. Subfascial breast implant: A new procedure. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:904–908
references: Lee JH, Lee PK, Oh DY, Rhie JW, Ahn ST. Subpectoral-subfascial breast augmentation for thin-skinned patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2012;36:115–121
references: Glasberg SB. The outcome of abdominoplasty performed under conscious sedation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:341–342