Introduction: Breast augmentation is one of the most frequently performed aesthetic surgical procedures in the world. The most important preoperative decisions which influence the final appearance of the augmented breast are the breast implant pocket choice and selection of the most appropriate implant. Described pocket locations are subglandular, subfascial, partially retropectoral, totally submuscular and dual plane. Aim: We have introduced a new method of pocket forming for implant placement, which is combination of Tebbett’s dual-plane 2 or 3 and Graf’s subfascial. We named it as dual plane subfascial. Methods: Between January 2016 and April 2018, total of 27 patients were operated using dual plane subfascial breast augmentation. The pinch test in the medial pole less than 2,0 cm and in upper pole less than 2,5 cm are indications for this technique. In our modification, in primary cases a dissected flap in front of muscle is fasciocutaneous (not cutaneous as in Tebbett’s technique). It will be finally located caudally of pectoral muscle and in front of the lower pole of implant. Fasciocutaneous flap in primary cases and two independent levels of soft tissue coverage (fascial and cutaneous) in secondary cases (subglandular to dual plane subfascial conversion) in front of the lower pole of implants provide better coverage than cutaneous flap alone. Results: Hematoma and infection did not occur in any patient in our study. A capsular contracture grade I/II without the need for reoperation occurred in two patients. In one patient with secondary augmentation minimal bottoming out was noticed (before reoperation patient had significant bottoming out deformity). Minimal palpability of implants is recorded in three patients. Conclusion: Dual plane subfascial is a good option in primary breast augmentation with a well set indication especially in the breasts with the upper pinch test less than 25 mm and medial pinch test less than 20 mm. The idea can be followed even in secondary breast augmentation (subglandular to dual plane subfascial conversion). There is additional soft tissue in front of the implant which led to a less implant palpability, especially in thin patient with smaller amount of subcutaneous fat.

Introduction: Thermal injury causes the destruction of dermo-epidermal barrier, a natural isolator, which then speeds up the bacterial contamination of the burn wound. Patients and methods: The study is of a retrospective-descriptive character and covers the period from Jaunary 1st 2004 through December 30th 2006. During the survey we took and analyzed the bacterial swabs of 54 patients with burn injuries. Goal: The goal of our study was to present the frequency rate of the infection with the patients with burn injuries treated at the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Clinic in Sarajevo. Survey results: Infection was not found with only 7 patients (14,5%). The most frequent causes of infection in the control group of patients were as follows: S. epidermidis (27,4%), S. aureus (21,6%), P. aeruginosa (19,6%). Conclusion: The presence of infection and antibiotic resistance of the isolated bacteria were the cause of a prolonged hospitalisation as well as increased treatment costs of the patients with burn injuries.