{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027676240208877285, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01671018276762402, 'mean_word_length': 5.699300699300699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Subtleties of Success in Simultaneous Augmentation-Mastopexy

Background: Many have challenged the safety of performing breast augmentation and mastopexy simultaneously. However, staging these procedures incurs the increased risk and inconvenience of two periods of anesthesia and recuperation. The authors set out to evaluate the occurrence of complications across the populations of patients undergoing (1) combined augmentation-mastopexy, (2) isolated augmentation, and (3) isolated mastopexy. Methods: A retrospective analysis of one surgeon’s consecutive series of each of these procedures from 2000 to 2009 was conducted. Preoperative risk factors were characterized. Sixteen different complications were examined, and those necessitating operative revision were tracked. Statistical analysis was performed looking for significant differences between the surgical groups. Results: No instances of infection, tissue loss, or implant exposure occurred among the 297 patients over an average follow-up period of 15.5 months. The isolated mastopexy group did not provide sufficient data for statistical comparison. Tissue-related complications were most common in the combined procedure group. The operative revision rate for isolated augmentation was 7.97 percent compared with a combined procedure revision rate of 12.4 percent (p = 0.28). Conclusions: The majority of complications in this series comparing simultaneous augmentation-mastopexy to isolated augmentation were minor. Complications requiring operative revision were not found to be significantly different between the two groups. There was a much lower reoperation rate (12.4 percent) with the combined procedure compared with a 100 percent reoperation rate when the procedure is staged. Thus, the authors feel the combined procedure can safely be part of every plastic surgeon’s practice. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.