The aim — to determine the effectiveness of the upper pole reinforcement of «neo pocket» with prolene thread for the mammary gland prothesis rotation (MGPR) prevention after primary augmentative mammoplasty in the remote postoperative period.Materials and methods. A prospective independent comparison of annual results after primary augmentation mammoplasty in two groups of patients was carried out. The comparison group included 94 patients, the main group — 76 women, whose operation was accompanied by fixing the upper pole of the «neopocket» with the prolene mesh. Any statistical differences were not found between the two groups in age, body mass index, mass of breast prostheses, the proportion of patients who were pregnant and breast‑fed. In all cases, the implanted textured prosthesis was with a high and medium profile. Most patients had prostheses in the volume of 325 — 335 and 375 ml. The evaluation of the MGPR was carried out following the developed procedure with the ESAOTE ultrasound device, the Technos Partner model, by a linear sensor with a frequency of 12.5 MHz.Results and discussion. The comparison group, showed 143 (76.1 %) prostheses being rotated, whereas the main group — 46 (30.3 %) (p = 0.001). In the comparison group, only 4 (1.6 %) women did not have RP of both glands, in the main group — in 39 (51.3 %) (p = 0.001). Significant differences in the degree of MGRP (p = 0.001) were noted due to the absence of angles 120°, 150° and 180° in the main group of the LLP. The main group did not demonstrate even a single case of clinically significant MGPR, while in the comparison group 11 (11.7 %) (p = 0.002). In the main group, the ratio of 30°/60 ° rotation (10.9 and 89.1 %) statistically significantly differed from that in the comparison group (31.5 and 68.5 %) due to a smaller proportion of MGPR at 60° (p = 0.006).Conclusions. A method of fixation of the submuscular «neo pocket» upper pole with prolene mesh a year after the augmentative mammoplasty, avoids clinically significant MGPR (more than 900) in contrast to the traditional method (11.7 %) (p = 0.002), and in cases of clinically insignificant rotation to decrease in 1.3 times the proportion of prostheses rotation at 600 (p = 0.006).