A comparative assessment of three planes of implant placement in breast augmentation: A Bayesian analysis.

[BACKGROUND] Techniques based on three planes of implant placement, including the subglandular (SG), subpectoral (SP), and subfascial (SF) planes are used for breast augmentation. The placement that offers the greatest balance of risks and benefits is unclear. This study presents a systematic review with a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare different implant placement techniques for augmentation mammaplasty.

[METHODS] A systematic literature search was performed. We estimated the odds ratios (ORs) for capsular contractures, hematomas, seromas, infections, reoperation rates, rippling, nipple numbness, malplacements, ruptures, and asymmetry among the different interventions. Muscle movement events and satisfaction rates were also evaluated.

[RESULTS] A total of 19 studies (25,744 cases) were included. SG placement significantly increased the incidence of capsular contractures (SP vs. SG: OR 0.42; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.28-0.63; SF vs. SG: OR 0.41; 95% CrI 0.17-0.97), hematomas (SF vs. SG: OR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.06-0.63), and seromas (SF vs. SG: OR 0.04; 95% CrI 0.00-0.81) compared to other placement techniques. Muscle movement only occurred in the SP group, but it did not increase the risk of subsequent malplacements, asymmetries, or ruptures. Most patients were highly satisfied with their surgical results. Comparisons did not show significant differences in the remaining results.

[CONCLUSIONS] Our evidence suggests that SG placement increases the risk of capsular contractures, hematomas, and seromas. The SP and SF planes were safe and effective for controlling total complication rates and achieving high satisfaction rates; however, the long-term benefits of the SF technique require further research.