Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 311–316 | Cite as

Periareolar techniques for mammary reduction and elevation

  • Javier de Benito
  • Ignacio F. Sanza
Article

Abstract

Between June 1990 and June 1992 we carried out 56 breast operations: 18 reductions, 32 mastopexies, and 6 implant changes. The surgical techniques used in all cases basically consisted of three phases: the periareolar incision, the creation of the superior pedicle with two medial and lateral flaps, and the “anchoring,” crossed by both flaps in order to hold up the mammary gland. The diameter of the “doughnut” of skin that we had to deepidermize varied between 5 and 15 cm, thus raising the nipple-areola complex by as much as 10 cm. The volume of tissue removed from the hypertrophic breast ranged from 70 to 520 g. In 24 of the 32 mastopexies, the use of a silicone implant was necessary in order to provide greater volume, texture, and better mammary contour. In these cases the size of the prostheses varied between 120 and 300 cc. All patients completed the postop followup in the normal way. Only three patients suffered a slight dehiscence of the periareolar suture, which was solved within a few days of the operation by means of a Friedreich. The periareolar cutaneous pleats and the hardness of the breast gradually disappeared, as predicted, within a period of 3–4 months; afterward the breast looked perfectly natural.

Key words

Periareolar incision Skin doughnut Crossing flap Anchorage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Becker H: The correction of breast ptosis with the expander mammary prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 24(6):489, 1989Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benelli L: A new periareolar mammaplasty: the “round block” technique. Aesth Plast Surg 14:93, 1990Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bustos RA: Periareolar mammaplasty with silicone supporting lamina. Plast Reconstr Surg 89(4):646, 1992Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Longis E: Mastoplasty with an L-shaped limited scar retropectoral dermopexy. Aesth Plast Surg 10:171, 1986Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elsahy NI: The modified hexagonal technique for reduction mammoplasty and mastopexy. Ann Plast Surg 10:45, 1986Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felicio Y: Periareolar reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 88(5):789, 1991Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finger RE: Superomedial pedicle technique of reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 88(3):471, 1989Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gasperoni C: Experience and technical refinements in the “doughnut” mastopexy with augmentation mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg 12:111, 1988Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Georgiade NG: Aesthetic Breast Surgery. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1983, pp 1–19, 130–321Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marconi F: The dermal pursestring suture: a new technique for a short inframammary scar in reduction mammaplasty and dermal mastopexy. Ann Plast Surg 22(6):484, 1989Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meyer R: The principles of the up-to-date breast reduction. Aesth Plast Surg 14:1, 1990Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicole FV: Reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy: a personal technique. Ann Plast Surg 8:43, 1984Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peixoto G: The infra-areolar longitudinal incision in reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg 9:1, 1985Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ship AG: Dual-pedicle dermoparenchymal mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 83(2):281, 1989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier de Benito
    • 1
  • Ignacio F. Sanza
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Cirugia EsteticaClinica QuironBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations