Transaxillary Nonendoscopic Subpectoral Augmentation Mammaplasty: A 10-Year Experience With Gel vs Saline in 2000 Patients—With Long-Term Patient Satisfaction Measured by the BREAST-Q
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transaxillary augmentation mammaplasty (TAM) is an option for patients who wish to avoid a visible breast incision from breast augmentation (BA). OBJECTIVES: The authors compared TAM outcome data for gel and saline implants and evaluated patient satisfaction using the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure (BQ). METHODS: In this 10-year retrospective, comparative, and cross-sectional study, the authors reviewed results of saline implants placed with TAM in a surgeon's practice during the final 5 years of the moratorium of the US Food and Drug Administration (phase 1) and compared them with results for gel and saline implants placed with TAM during the 5 years after the moratorium (phase 2). Outcomes were assessed for the entire BA study population (n = 2430 for primary BA; 4860 implants); 670 patients completed and returned the BQ, from which postoperative satisfaction was evaluated. RESULTS: BQ responses demonstrated a high rate of patient satisfaction, with outcomes comparable to those of other studies. The differences between the median BQ-assessed breast satisfaction and outcome satisfaction scores in the axillary and nonaxillary surgical groups were statistically significant, favoring axillary over nonaxillary. The difference in mean satisfaction scores was marginally significant between the 2 types of implants, favoring silicone gel. The incidence of surgical revision was 7.5% for the entire BA study population and 6.8% for the patients who underwent TAM. CONCLUSIONS: TAM produces long-term patient satisfaction as measured by the BQ. Complication rates are similar to those of other studies. In the present study, patients who underwent TAM and thus had hidden incisions were more satisfied than patients whose incisions were visible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".