» Articles » PMID: 37731908

Implant Attributes or Patient Characteristics? Factors Affecting Outcome After Breast Augmentation in Transgender Women

Overview
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2023 Sep 21
PMID 37731908
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Methods: A cohort of transgender women who underwent breast augmentation at our department during 2009-2018 were retrospectively studied. The cohort was also compared with a cohort of 12,884 mainly cisgender women registered in the Swedish breast implant registry (BRIMP) during 2014-2019.

Results: A total of 143 transgender individuals were included, with a median follow-up of 5.7 years. Complications occurred in 20 patients (14.0%), four patients (2.8%) underwent acute reoperation, and 20 patients (14.0%) had secondary corrections. No differences were seen in complication rates when comparing prepectoral with subpectoral placement (15.1% versus 12.9%; = 0.81); size, less than 400 mL versus greater than or equal to 400 mL (14.7% versus 13.3%; = 0.81), or the shape of the implants, round versus anatomic (10.7% versus 22.2%; = 0.10). In comparison with the cohort from BRIMP, the transgender cohort had more round implants (72.0% versus 60.7%; < 0.01), larger implants (44.1% had volumes of 400-599 mL, compared with 25.4%; < 0.0001), and more prepectoral placement (51.0% versus 7.3%; < 0.0001). The risk of reoperation less than 30 days was 1.2% in BRIMP and 2.8% in the transgender cohort ( = 0.08).

Conclusions: In transgender women, implants are often larger, round, and placed prepectoral' compared with cisgender women. Despite these differences, complication rates were equivalent. Implant attributes, surgical techniques, and patient characteristics were not independently associated with the rate of complications.

Citing Articles

Breast care considerations for transgender and gender-diverse patients.

Carroll E, Rogers C, Summerside M, Cortina C Womens Health (Lond). 2024; 20:17455057241289706.

PMID: 39382481 PMC: 11465296. DOI: 10.1177/17455057241289706.

References
1.
Hanwright P, Hirsch E, Seth A, Chow G, Smetona J, McNichols C . A multi-institutional perspective of complication rates for elective nonreconstructive breast surgery: an analysis of NSQIP data from 2006 to 2010. Aesthet Surg J. 2013; 33(3):378-86. DOI: 10.1177/1090820X13478819. View

2.
Heden P, Jernbeck J, Hober M . Breast augmentation with anatomical cohesive gel implants: the world's largest current experience. Clin Plast Surg. 2001; 28(3):531-52. View

3.
Bustos V, Bustos S, Mascaro A, Corral G, Forte A, Ciudad P . Regret after Gender-affirmation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prevalence. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021; 9(3):e3477. PMC: 8099405. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003477. View

4.
Cuccolo N, Kang C, Boskey E, Ibrahim A, Blankensteijn L, Taghinia A . Epidemiologic Characteristics and Postoperative Complications following Augmentation Mammaplasty: Comparison of Transgender and Cisgender Females. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019; 7(10):e2461. PMC: 6846310. DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002461. View

5.
Tebbetts J, Adams W . Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the high five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 116(7):2005-16. View