The impact of breast augmentation on the skin temperature  of the breast

Branislav  Piščević; Zorica Brdareski; Nenad Stepić; Boban Djordjević; Dejana Vulović; Marko  Jovanović; Dejan Vulović

doi:10.2298/VSP170410101P

Branislav Piščević Military Medical Academy, Clinic for Plastic Surgery and Burns, Belgrade, Serbia
Zorica Brdareski Military Medical Academy, Clinic for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Belgrade, Serbia
Nenad Stepić Military Medical Academy, Clinic for Plastic Surgery and Burns, Belgrade, Serbia
Boban Djordjević Military Medical Academy, Clinic for Plastic Surgery and Burns, Belgrade, Serbia
Dejana Vulović University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kragujevac, Serbia
Marko Jovanović Clinical Center “Kragujevac”, Center for Plastic Surgery, Kragujevac, Serbia
Dejan Vulović Center for Plastic Surgery, Clinical Center ”Kragujevac”, Kragujevac, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP170410101P

Keywords: breast implantation;, reconstructive surgical procedures;, skin temperature;, treatment outcome.

Abstract

Introduce and aim

Complications of breast augmentation, as one of the most common cosmetic surgery, may be different. Besides the usual early, local postoperative complications, the most common late complication is capsular contracture. As a specific complications of skin functions after this operation only disturbance of sensibility is described. Since the skin has other functions as well, and because there are no literature data available, we decided that the goal of the research is measuring the temperature of skin temperature before and after surgery.

Methods

A prospective interventional study was done in 49 adult women. Bilateral augmentative mammaplasty was performed for breast hypoplasia or on the personal request of a patient with eutrophic breasts. Measuring of the temperature of the skin of the breast was done in two points, before the operation, seven days after surgery and three months after surgery. Temperature measurement was done by infrared thermometer (Pyrometer TROTEC BP21). Statistic significance was determined using the t- test for related samples. Differences were considered statistically significant if p was less than 0.05. Eta squared coefficient was determined by the size and impact criteria Cohen all over 12:14 signified a major impact. The data were analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics v20.

Results

In the majority of patients breasts were hypoplastic (69.39%). The most commonly used implants were 275-500ml volume (46.94%), and the least common implants were over 500ml (16.33%). In a little less than 2/3 of the patientssubmammary incision was used (61.22%). In the majority of patients (67.35%), prosthesis were placed subglandular. The average value of the temperature before the operation at point 1 was 34.49° C, seven days after surgery 34.81° C, and three months after surgery 34.10 ° C; and in item 2: 34.60° C, 34.91° C and 34.19° C in the same time intervals. In relation to the size of the breast before operation, and the size of the implant manufacturer, the localization of the incision and placement of the localization of the prosthesis, had no statistically significant differences in the temperature of the skin of the breast before and after surgery.

Conclusion

Our results on the change of skin temperature after breast augmentation could have significance in preoperative patient information

Key words: Breast augmentation, complications , skin temperature, breast temperature

Background/Aim. Complications of breast augmentation, as one of the most common cosmetic surgery, may be different. Besides usual early, local postoperative complicatons, the most common late complication is capsular contracture. As a specific complication of skin functions after this operation only disturbance of sensibility is described. Since the skin has other functions as well, and because there are no literature data available, the aim of this research was measuring the skin temperature before and after surgery. Methods. A prospective intervential study was done in 49 adult women. Bilateral augmentative mammaplasty was performed for breast hypoplasia or on the personal request of a patient with autrophic breasts. Measuring the temperature of the breast skin was done in two points, before the operation, and seven days and three months after surgery. The temperature measurement was done by the infrared thermometer (Pyrometer TROTEC BP21). Statistically significant difference was determined using the t-test for related samples. Differences were considered statistically significant if p was less than 0.05. Eta squared coefficient was use to determine the import size and according to the Cohen criteria everything over 10:14 signified a major impact. The data were analyzed by the IBP SPSS Statistics v20. Results. In a majority of patients the breasts were hypoplastic (69.39%). The most commonly used implants were 275–500 mL volume (46.94%), and the least common implants were over 500 mL (16.33%). In a little less than 2/3 of the patients submammary incision was used (61.22%). In a majority of patients (67.35%) the prosthesis were placed subglandularly. The average value of the temperature before the operation at the point 1 was 34.49ºC, seven days after surgery 34.81ºC, and three months after surgery 34.10ºC; and at the point 2: 34.60 ºC, 34.91ºC and 34.19ºC in the same time intervals. In relation to the size of the breasts before operation and the size of the implant manufacturer, the localization of the incision and placement of the localization of the prosthesis, no statistically significant differences in the temperature of the skin of the breast before and after surgery was observed. Conclusion. Our results on the change of skin temperature after the breast augmentation could be significant preoperative information for the patients.

Author Biography

Branislav Piščević, Military Medical Academy, Clinic for Plastic Surgery and Burns, Belgrade, Serbia

Military Medical Academy,

Clinic for plastic surgery and burns

References

American Society of Plastic Surgeons. National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2013 Plastic Surgery Sta-tistics Report. American Society of Plastic Surgeons; 2014.

Codner MA, Mejia JD, Locke MB, Mahoney A, Thiels C, Nahai FR, et al. A 15-year experience with primary breast augmenta-tion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127(3): 1300–10.

Swanson E. Prospective outcome study of 225 cases of breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131(5): 1158–66.

Hidalgo DA, Sinno S. Current Trends and Controversies in Breast Augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137(4): 1142–50.

Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH. Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratified by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66(9): 1165–72.

Adams WP, Small KH. The Process of Breast Augmentation with Special Focus on Patient Education, Patient Selection and Implant Selection. Clin Plast Surg 2015; 42(4): 413–26.

Vitug A, Newman L. Complications in Breast Suregry. Surg Clin N Am 2007; 87(4): 431–51.

Shi H, Cao C, Li X, Chen L, Li S. A retrospective study of primary breast augmentation: Recovery period, complications and patient satisfaction. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015; 8(10): 18737–43.

Headon H, Kasem A, Mokbel K. Capsular Contracture after Breast Augmentation: An Update for Clinical Practice. Arch Plast Surg 2015; 42(5): 532–43.

Okwueze MI, Spear ME, Zwyghuizen AM, Braün SA, Ajmal N, Nanney LB, et al. Effect of augmentation mammaplasty on breast sensation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117(1): 73–83; discussion 84–5.

Mofid M, Klatsky SA, Singh NK, Nahabedian MY. Nipple-areola complex sensitivity after primary breast augmentation: A comparison of periareolar and inframammary incision ap-proaches. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117(6): 1694–8.

Araco A, Araco F, Sorge R, Gravante G. Sensitivity of the nip-ple-areola complex and areolar pain following aesthetic breast augmentation in a retrospective series of 1200 patients: Peri-areolar versus submammary incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128(4): 984–9.

Lund HG, Turkle J, Jewell ML, Murphy DK. Low Risk of Skin and Nipple Sensitivity and Lactation Issues After Primary Breast Augmentation with Form-Stable Silicone Implants: Follow-Up in 4927 Subjects. Aesthet Surg J 2016; 36(6): 672–80.

Xu J, Wei S. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: Review of a distinct clinicopathologic entity. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138(6): 842–6.

Staffa E, Bernard V, Kubíček L, Vlachovský R, Vlk D, Mornstein V, et al. Using Noncontact Infrared Thermography for Long-term Monitoring of Foot Temperatures in a Patient with Dia-betes Mellitus. Ostomy Wound Manage 2016; 62(4): 54–61.

Greenwald M, Ball J, Guerrettaz K, Paulus H. Using dermal Temperature to identify rheumatoid arthritis examiners with radiologic progressive disease in less than one minute. Arthritis Care Res 2016; 68(8): 1201–5.

Engebretsen KA, Johansen JD, Kezic S, Linneberg A, Thyssen JP. The effect of environmental humidity and temperature on skin barrier function and dermatitis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2016; 30(2): 223–49.

Jones NF. Postoperative monitoring of microsurgical free tis-sue transfers for head and neck reconstruction. Microsurgery 1988; 9(2): 159–64.

Furnas H, Rosen JM. Monitoring in microvascular surgery. Ann Plast Surg 1991; 26(3): 265–72.

Kozarski J, Pantelić Lj, Novaković M, Pavlica M, Panajotović Lj. Temperature of the skin in microvascular flaps. Vojnosanit Pregl 1999; 56(5): 483–9. (Serbian)

Kraemer R, Lorenzen J, Knobloch K, Papst S, Kabbani M, Koenneck-er S, et al. Free flap microcirculatory monitoring correlates to free flap temperature assessment. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64(10): 1353–8.

Gazzola R, Cavallini M, Parodi PC, Benanti E, Vaienti L. Radi-ometric infrared temperature detection in skin expansion. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130(5): 762e–4e.

Kimura C, Matsuoka M. Changes in breast skin temperature during the course of breastfeeding. J Hum Lact 2007; 23(1): 60–9.

Ayres B, White J, Hedger W, Scurr J. Female upper body and breast skin temperature and thermal comfort following exer-cise. Ergonomics 2013; 56(7): 1194–202.

Wynn TA. Common and unique mechanisms regulate fibrosis in various fibroproliferative diseases. J Clin Invest 2007; 117(3): 524–9.

Gauldie J. Pro: inflammatory mechanisms are a minor compo-nent of the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2002; 165(9): 1205–6.

Erjefalt JS, Sundler F, Persson CG. Eosinophils, neutrophils, and venular gaps in the airway mucosa at epithelial removal: Restitution. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 1996; 153(5): 1666–74.

Bringardner BD, Baran CP, Eubank TD, Marsh CB. The role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fi-brosis. Antioxid Redox Signal 2008; 10(2): 287–301.

Agostini C, Gurrieri C. Chemokine/cytokine cocktail in idio-pathic pulmonary fibrosis. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2006; 3(4): 357–63.

Iwano M, Plieth D, Danoff TM, Xue C, Okada H, Neilson EG. Evidence that fibroblasts derive from epithelium during tissue fibrosis. J Clin Invest 2002; 110(3): 341–50.

Ojo-Amaize EA, Lawless OJ, Peter JB. Elevated concentrations of interleukin-1 beta and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in plasma of women with silicone breast implants. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 1996; 3(3): 257–9.

Rohde CH, Taylor EM, Alonso A, Ascherman JA, Hardy KL, Pilla AA. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Reduce Postoperative In-terleukin-1β, Pain, and Inflammation: A Double-Blind, Place-bo-Controlled Study in TRAM Flap Breast Reconstruction Patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135(5): 808–17.