A transumbilical breast augmentation review covers 13,210 breasts and reports low complication rates, but short follow-up limits the findings.
A concealed incision, but how strong is the evidence?
Transumbilical breast augmentation uses an incision within the navel to place breast implants. A systematic review published on 6 November 2026 examined its reported outcomes across 17 studies. The review covered 6,605 patients and 13,210 breasts, although 6,510 patients actually underwent the transumbilical approach. Its findings appear reassuring at first glance. However, the authors warn that the evidence cannot establish equivalence with conventional incisions.
What the pooled data found
The review reported a pooled haematoma rate of 0.2%, capsular contracture of 1.7% and reintervention of 2.3%. Infection was estimated at 0.0%, with a confidence interval extending to 0.7%. Median operating time clustered around 60 minutes. The authors also described favourable patient satisfaction across included studies. However, satisfaction outcomes were not combined into a single pooled estimate.
Why the percentages are not a safety ranking
Most included studies were retrospective, single-arm reports. Therefore, they lacked a directly comparable group receiving inframammary or other standard incisions. Follow-up was also relatively short. This is especially important for capsular contracture, implant rupture and revision surgery, which may occur years later. A low pooled estimate does not mean that an event is impossible. Nor does it prove that the navel approach is safer.
Practical limits of the technique
The technique requires a tunnel from the navel toward the breast and is commonly associated with saline implants that can be filled after placement. Implant choice and surgeon experience influence whether it is suitable. The incision may be less visible on the breast, but a concealed scar is only one part of a good surgical outcome. Implant position, long-term results and management of complications also matter.
What patients should ask
Patients should discuss the implant type, incision options, surgeon experience and long-term follow-up. The study provides descriptive outcomes, not a recommendation to choose transumbilical surgery over established approaches. Better comparative studies would help clarify its place in modern breast augmentation.
Sources
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-026-06362-5
Disclaimer
This article is published by Aesthetics.news for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis or treatment, and should not replace a consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Treatments and outcomes may vary from person to person. Readers should seek advice from an appropriately qualified professional before making decisions about their health or treatment. In a medical emergency, seek immediate medical assistance.