Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current trends in breast reduction: an international analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Breastand reductions mastopexies continue to rank among the most frequently performed plastic surgical procedures worldwide. While there exists a consensus on several aspects of the procedure, a plethora of controversies remain. This study aims to compare the most relevant peri- and intra-operative factors on an international level to standardize this common procedure according to evidence-based guidelines.

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to over five thousand surgeons in 77 countries. The survey was divided into three categories according to the volume of removed breast tissue (50–500 g, 500–1000 g, and > 1000 g) and inquired about standard practices, secondary procedures, use of new technologies, current controversies, and surgeon demographics. The results were evaluated and correlated with evidence-based literature.

Results

A total of 1431 surveys were gathered, corresponding to a response rate of 29%. It was found that specific surgical approaches and standard practices prevail on an international basis. Still, there exist controversies that seem to be linked to geographic locations. For instance, irrespective of resection weight, in the majority of countries, a superior or superomedial pedicle is used most frequently, while in North America and South East Asia, the inferior-based pedicle is preferred.

Conclusions

We identified common traits in several aspects of breast reduction surgery. However, in this study, it became apparent that international practice patterns remain incoherent. Seen from a global perspective, plastic surgeons would thus still benefit from high-quality studies to further establish evidence-based, standardized, and universally applicable practice guidelines.

Level of Evidence: Not gradable

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Surgery, I.S.o.A.P. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2017. 2018 [cited 2019 03.05.2019]; Available from: https://www.isaps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ISAPS_2017_International_Study_Cosmetic_Procedures.pdf.

  2. Regnault P (1976) Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 3(2):193–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brink RR (1993) Management of true ptosis of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 91(4):657–662

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Elliott LF (2002) Circumareolar mastopexy with augmentation. Clin Plast Surg 29(3):337–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rohrich RJ et al (1998) Aesthetic management of the breast following explantation: evaluation and mastopexy options. Plast Reconstr Surg 101(3):827–837

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rohrich RJ et al (2004) Current preferences for breast reduction techniques: a survey of board-certified plastic surgeons 2002. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(7):1724–33; discussion 1734–6

  7. Affairs., U.N.D.o.E.a.S. (2011) Classification of countries by major areas and region of the world, in World population prospects. New York

  8. Greco R, Noone B (2017) Evidence-based medicine: reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 139(1):230e–239e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kerrigan CL, Slezak SS (2013) Evidence-based medicine: reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132(6):1670–1683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Courtiss EH, Goldwyn RM (1977) Reduction mammaplasty by the inferior pedicle technique. An alternative to free nipple and areola grafting for severe macromastia or extreme ptosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 59(4):500–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stojkovic CA et al (2013) Wound drainage after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD007258.

  12. Collis N, McGuiness CM, Batchelor AG (2005) Drainage in breast reduction surgery: a prospective randomised intra-patient trail. Br J Plast Surg 58(3):286–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Corion LU et al (2009) Draining after breast reduction: a randomised controlled inter-patient study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62(7):865–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wrye SW et al (2003) Routine drainage is not required in reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(1):113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas SS et al (1999) Dilute adrenaline infiltration and reduced blood loss in reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg 43(2):127–131

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nipshagen MD, Hage JJ, Beekman WH (2008) Use of 2-octyl-cyanoacrylate skin adhesive (Dermabond) for wound closure following reduction mammaplasty: a prospective, randomized intervention study. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(1):10–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee JC et al (2018) In search of an ideal closure method: a randomized, controlled trial of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate and adhesive mesh versus subcuticular suture in reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(4):850–856

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghoncheh M, Pournamdar Z, Salehiniya H (2016) Incidence and mortality and epidemiology of breast cancer in the world. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 17(S3):43–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ambaye AB et al (2017) Recommendations for pathologic evaluation of reduction mammoplasty specimens: a prospective study with systematic tissue sampling. Arch Pathol Lab Med 141(11):1523–1528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Merkkola-von Schantz PA et al (2017) Should we routinely analyze reduction mammaplasty specimens? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 70(2):196–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Uson Junior PLS et al (2018) Incidental findings in reduction mammoplasty specimens in patients with no prior history of breast cancer. An Analysis of 783 Specimens. Pathol Oncol Res 24(1):95–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mastroianni M et al (2019) Proliferative lesions found at reduction mammaplasty: incidence and implications in 995 breast reductions. Plast Reconstr Surg 143(2):271e–275e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Heidekrueger PI et al (2018) Current trends in breast augmentation: an international analysis. Aesthet Surg J 38(2):133–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Roostaeian J, Adams WP Jr (2014) Three-dimensional imaging for breast augmentation: is this technology providing accurate simulations? Aesthet Surg J 34(6):857–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chang JB et al (2015) Three-dimensional surface imaging in plastic surgery: foundation, practical applications, and beyond. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(5):1295–1304

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Biemer PP, L.L. (2003) Introduction to survey quality, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. de Leeuw E, d.H.W. (2002) Trends in household survey nonresponse: a longitudinal and international comparison, in survey nonresponse. In: DD. Groves RM, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY. p. 41–54

  28. A, H., Margin of arrogance is huge for pollsters, ed. K. J. 1998, Chicago, IL: Chicago Sun-Times

  29. Israel JS et al (2015) Plastic surgeons’ perceptions of the affordable care act: results of a national survey. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3(1):e293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Losken A et al (2016) Current opinion on the oncoplastic approach in the USA. Breast J 22(4):437–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sinno S et al (2015) Current trends in facial rejuvenation: an assessment of ASPS members’ use of fat grafting during face lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(1):20e–30e

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vargas CR, Chuang DJ, Lee BT (2014) Assessment of patient health literacy: a national survey of plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(6):1405–1414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive, Burn and Hand Surgery, München Klinik Bogenhausen, Academic Teaching Hospital, Technical University Munich, Englschalkinger Strasse 77, 81925, Munich, Germany

    Peter Niclas Broer, Charlotte Topka & Milomir Ninkovic

  2. Division of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    Antonio Jorge Forte

  3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Dreifaltigkeits-Krankenhaus, Wesseling, Germany

    Dirk Frank Richter

  4. Private Practice, Cirugia Plastica, Estetica Y Reconstructiva, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Martin Colombo

  5. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Universitatsklinikum Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Thiha Aung, Lukas Prantl & Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger

  6. Plastic Surgery, Dallas Plastic Surgery Institute, Dallas, TX, USA

    Rodney James Rohrich

  7. Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, USA

    Rodney James Rohrich

Authors
  1. Peter Niclas Broer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Jorge Forte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charlotte Topka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dirk Frank Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Martin Colombo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thiha Aung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lukas Prantl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Milomir Ninkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rodney James Rohrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Topka.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This was a survey-based study; the local ethics committe confirmed that ethical approval was not required.

Consent to participate

Participants gave by default their consents as they complied with the survey.

Informed consent

This was a global observational study among plastic surgeons. Information on individual patients was not obtained.

Conflict of interest

Broer PN, Forte AJ, Topka C, Richter DF, Colombo M, Aung T, Prantl L, Ninkovic M, Rohrich R, and Heidekrueger PI declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broer, P.N., Forte, A.J., Topka, C. et al. Current trends in breast reduction: an international analysis. Eur J Plast Surg 45, 421–428 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01878-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-021-01878-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation