A Decalogue on Enhanced Recovery After Breast Augmentation Surgery (ERABAS).

[BACKGROUND] Medical and technical advances have changed the state of postoperative surgical patient care, allowing for better and faster recovery. Since its publication, predictable 24-hour recovery in breast augmentation surgery has been controversial and has generated discussion. In this study, we present a novel, easy, and reproducible protocol for Enhanced Recovery After Breast Augmentation Surgery (ERABAS), along with a summary of the ten points to follow.

[METHODS] We conducted a retrospective study of all primary breast augmentation surgeries performed between 2010 and 2020 by a private activity. All surgeries were performed by the same surgeon according to the same protocol, and all implants were obtained from the same company. Data were evaluated using two binary logistic regression models, taking as variables responses to recovery time and postoperative pain and as predictor or explanatory variables to the factors age, smoking, size, and location of the implant.

[RESULTS] In total, 2906 patients were included in this study. Of these, 2770 patients (95%) immediately returned to normal life within the first 24 h, 129 achieved normal life in four days, and only seven needed a week to recover. In these seven patients, the main acute complications were hemorrhage and acute hematoma. The implants were always round; textured implants were used in 88.8% of patients, while smooth implants were used in 11.2%. A subfascial pocket was used in 934 patients, and a dual-plane pocket was performed for 1972 patients. The only factor that showed a significant effect on recovery time was the location of the implant (p  < 0.05), with the dual-plane pocket being the intervention associated with a later recovery, specifically a probability of recovery after 24 hour, 2.86 times greater than subfascial.

[CONCLUSIONS] The ERABAS protocol allowed rapid return to daily activities with low complication rates. Further prospective comparative multicenter studies are required to confirm these results.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.