Back

Umar Daraz Khan

Umar Daraz Khan

Reshape House
UK

Title: Use of muscle splitting biplane in primary and revisionary breast augmentation and augmentation with mastopexy

Biography

He has started his career as a Consultant Aesthetic Plastic Surgeon in 1999. His work load is entirely composed of aesthetic procedures involving Face Lifts, Rhinoplasties, Breast Augmentations, Breast Reductions, Breast uplift, Blepheroplasties, Browlift, abdominoplasties, Liposuction etc. He has written over 50 articles in peer reviewed journals and have given over 150 presentations in international conferences and congresses. He is a member of editorial board of peer reviewed journals.

Abstract

Back ground In Muscle Splitting Biplane technique, muscle lies in front and behind the implant at the same time. Submuscular positioning of the implant is achieved by splitting muscle along its fibres direction without muscle release. The concept is used for augmentation mammoplasty and augmentation mastopexy in primary and secondary cases. Methods: Since 2005, author performed 1418 implant related surgeries. The technique was used in primary augmentation mammoplasties (1144 ), primary augmentation mastopexies (66 ), multiplane pocket for augmentation and internal glandulopexy through infra mammary crease (63 ). Muscle splitting biplane is also performed in patients requesting for change of implants following partial submuscular and subglandular mammoplasties (75 ), patients presenting with synmastia (6 ), bottoming down (26 ), capsular contracture (17 ), rippling of the breast (17 ), rupture of implants (9 ) and revision mastopexies following subglandular implant position (13 ). Author has also used the pocket to correct dynamic deformity (12 ) seen following partial submuscular breast augmentation. Results: Majority of the patients were happy with the results. Over all infection rate was less than 0.58%. Revision was performed in one patient following bottoming out correction, one patient had capsular contracture following breast augmentation and in another patient, due to muscle spasm, one of the implant was replaced in subglandular position. One patient required vertical scar mastopexy following internal glandulopexy with augmentation. Conclusion: Muscle splitting biplane is a versatile pocket and its quick learning curve and reproducibility has made it a good option for augmentation mammoplasty, augmentation with mastopexy in both primary as well revision procedures.