Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Aesthetic Outcomes of Umbilicoplasty in Breast Reconstruction with Abdominal Flap: Inverted-U Versus Vertical Oval Incision

  • Original Article
  • Body Contouring
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The umbilicus is a key aesthetic unit of the abdominal wall. It contributes to the natural curvature of the abdomen and is now considered as one of the most important factors in the overall results and patient satisfaction. In this study, we present an inverted-U incisional technique for umbilicoplasty. This study aims to describe the senior author’s approach to umbilicoplasty and compare the aesthetic outcomes of the inverted-U method with those of the vertical oval incisional technique.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed a total of 109 patients including 51 who underwent umbilicoplasty with the inverted-U incisional technique and 58 who had surgery with the vertical oval incisional method. With the description of our operative technique, the aesthetic outcomes of both techniques were compared by two independent surgeons using a 5-point Likert scale in terms of shape, size, depth, natural appearance and periumbilical scarring. Also, the total scores of the five items were calculated to give a final score for each patient (range, from 5 to 25 points).

Results

On all measured parameters, the inverted-U incisional technique produced favorable outcomes compared with the vertical oval incisional technique. Also, the inverted-U incisional technique was given significantly higher total scores than was the vertical oval incisional technique (inverted-U 14.73 ± 2.47 vs. vertical oval 11.26 ± 3.02, p = 0.002).

Conclusions

In this study, an inverted-U incisional technique produced significantly favorable outcomes in terms of shape, size, depth, natural appearance and overall score compared to a vertical oval incision (p < 0.05). We believe that this technique enables surgeons to achieve a better shape, natural retrusive appearance and superior hood.

Level of Evidence III

In this study, an inverted-U incisional technique produced significantly favorable outcomes in terms of shape, size, depth, natural appearance and overall score compared to a vertical oval incision (p < 0.05). We believe that this technique enables surgeons to achieve a better shape, natural retrusive appearance and superior hood.

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. Visconti G, Salgarello M (2016) The divine proportion “ace of spades” umbilicoplasty: a new method of navel postitioning and plasty in abdominoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 76(3):265–269

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Craig SB, Faller MS, Puckett CL (2000) In search of the ideal female umbilicus. Plast Reconstr Surg 105(1):389–392

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rodriguez-Feliz JR, Makhijani S, Przybyla A et al (2012) Intraoperative assessment of the umbilicopubic distance: a reliable anatomic landmark for transposition of the umbilicus. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(1):8–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ricci JA, Kamali P, Bechrer BE et al (2017) Umbilical necrosis rates after abdominal-based microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Surg Res 215:257–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vernon S (1957) Umbilical transplantation upward and abdominal contouring in lipectomy. Am J Surg 94(3):490–492

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruekers SE, van der Lei B, Tan TL et al (2009) “Scarless” umbilicoplasty: a new umbilicoplasty technique and a review of the English language literature. Ann Plast Surg 63(1):15–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mazzocchi M, Trigano E, Armenti AF et al (2011) Long-term results of a versatile technique for umbilicoplasty in abdominoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 35(4):456–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lesavoy MA, Fan K, Guenther DA et al (2012) The inverted-V Chevron umbilicoplasty for breast reconstruction and abdominoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 32(1):110–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cio TC, Noguira DS (2012) A new umbilical reconstruction technique used for 306 consecutive abdominoplasties. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(5):1009–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosner BA (2010) Fundamentals of biostatitics, 7th edn. Brooks/Cole Cengage learning, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  11. Oh S, Jeon H, Son D (2018) Location of the umbilicus in Korean women and its changes after breast reconstruction with an ipsilateral pedicled rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap. Arch Plast Surg 45(5):425–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Malic CC, Spyrou GE, Hough M et al (2007) Patient satisfaction with two different methods of umbilicoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 119(1):357–361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hazani R, Israeli R, Feingold RS (2009) Reconstructing a natural looking umbilicus: a new technique. Ann Plast Surg 63(4):358–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pallua N, Markowicz MP, Grosse F et al (2010) Aesthetically pleasant umbilicoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 64(6):722–725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Massiha H, Montegut W, Phillips R (1997) A method of reconstructing a natural-looking umbilicus in abdominoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 38(3):228–231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee SJ, Garg S, Lee HP (2014) Computer-aided analysis of the “beautiful” umbilicus. Aesthet Surg J 34(5):748–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Visconti G, Visconti E, Bonomo L et al (2015) Concepts in navel aesthetic: a comprehensive surface anatomy analysis. Aesthet Plast Surg 39(1):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van Veldhuisen CL, Kamali P, Wu W et al (2017) Prospective, double-blind evaluation of umbilicoplasty techniques using conventional and crowdsourcing methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 140(6):1151–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rozen SM, Redett R (2007) The two-dermal-flap umbilical transposition: a natural and aesthetic umbilicus after abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 119(7):2255–2262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pitanguy I (1967) Abdominal lipectomy: an approach to it through an analysis of 300 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 40(4):384–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baroudi R (1975) Umbilicaplasty. Clin Plast Surg 2(3):431–448

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dobou R, Ousterhout DK (1978) Placement of the umbilicus in an abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 61(2):291–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kajikawa A, Ueda K, Katsuragi Y et al (2012) How to reconstruct a natural and deep umbilicus: three methods of umbilicoplasty for five types of umbilical deformities. Ann Plast Surg 68(6):610–615

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. de Lacerda DJ, Martins DM, Marques A et al (1994) Umbilicoplasty for abdomen with a thin adipose layer. Br J Plast Surg 47(5):386–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cannistra C, Pecorelli E (1999) Umbilical restoration in abdominal dermolipectomy: a simple double-Y, double-M technique. Aesthet Plast Surg 23(5):364–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee MJ, Mustoe TA (2002) Simplified technique for creating a youthful umbilicus in abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 109(6):2136–2140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Castillo PF, Sepulveda CA, Prado AC et al (2007) Umbilical reinsertion in abdominoplasty: technique using deepithelialized skin flaps. Aesthet Plast Surg 31(5):519–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mejia JD (2020) Colombian clover umbilicoplasty: achieving a natural looking belly button. Aesthet Surg J 40(3):342–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kurt Yazar S, Serin M, Diyarbakirioglu M et al (2019) Comparison of aesthetic outcome with round and three-armed star flap umbilicoplasty. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 53(4):227–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pfulg M, Van de Sijpe K, Blondeel P (2005) A simple new technique for neo-umbilicoplasty. Br J Plast Surg 58(5):688–691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, 73, Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea

    Jae-Ho Chung, Ki-Jae Kim, Sung-Min Sohn, Jeong-Hyun Cheon, Seung-Ha Park & Eul-Sik Yoon

  2. Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Seung-Pil Jung

Authors
  1. Jae-Ho Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ki-Jae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sung-Min Sohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeong-Hyun Cheon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seung-Pil Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Seung-Ha Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Eul-Sik Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eul-Sik Yoon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

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

Chung, JH., Kim, KJ., Sohn, SM. et al. A Comparison of Aesthetic Outcomes of Umbilicoplasty in Breast Reconstruction with Abdominal Flap: Inverted-U Versus Vertical Oval Incision. Aesth Plast Surg 45, 135–142 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01860-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01860-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation