Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nipple Dimensions After Augmentation Mammoplasty, Mastopexy and Reduction Mammoplasty: A Comparative Clinical Study

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

Abstract

Background

Nipple hypertrophy is a rare aesthetic problem. Ideal nipple dimensions are 6–8 mm, while nipples larger than 10 mm are considered hypertrophic.

Patients and Methods

A total of 24 female patients, aged between 22 and 53 years, with a nipple diameter or height greater than 10 mm, underwent augmentation mammoplasty (AM), augmentation mastopexy (AUM) and reduction mammoplasty (RM) operations. The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of surgery containing equal numbers of patients. Group I underwent AM, Group II underwent AUM and Group III underwent RM surgery. Preoperative and 1-year post-operative nipple dimension measurements were performed, and the results were compared.

Results

There was no significant difference between the preoperative nipple volumes among the groups (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between preoperative and post-operative nipple volumes in Group I (p > 0.05). The difference between preoperative and post-operative nipple volumes in Group II and Group III was significant (p < 0.05). When post-operative dimension comparisons were taken into consideration, there was a significant difference between Group I compared to Group II and Group III (p < 0.05); however, the difference between Group II and Group III was not significant (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Since there will be no reduction in nipple size during the post-operative period in AM patients, hypertrophic nipple can be reduced in the same session. However, in patients with AUM or RM, if the reduction in nipple size is not sufficient, it is more convenient to perform the nipple reduction operation 1-year post-surgery.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lai YL, Wu WC (1996) Nipple reduction with a modified circumcision technique. Br J Plast Surg 49(5):307–309

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fanous Nabil, Tawile Carolyne, Fanous Amanda (2009) Nipple reduction—an adjunct to augmentation mammaplasty. Can J Plast Surg 17(3):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Wingerden JJ (2004) Breast-areola-nipple proportion. Ann Plast Surg 52(3):331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hauben DJ, Adler N, Silfen R, Regev D (2003) Breast-areola-nipple proportion. Ann Plast Surg 50(5):510–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lai YL, Weng CJ, Samuel Noordhoft M (1998) Areolar reduction with inner doughnut incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 101(6):1695–1699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Vecchione TR (1979) The reduction of the hypertrophic nipple. Aesthetic Plast Surg 3(1):343–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baxter Richard A (2003) Nipple or areolar reduction with simultaneous breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(7):1918–1921 discussion 1922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atiyeh BS, Al-Amm CA (2004) Nipple or areolar reduction with simultaneous breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 114(4):1009–1010 author reply 1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Koban KC, Frank K, Etzel L, Schenck TL, Giunta RE (2019) 3D mammometric changes in the treatment of ıdiopathic gynecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 43(3):616–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors declare no financial interest in any of the products, devices or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SO-EP Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery Clinic, Hunat Mah. Nuh Naci Yazgan Caddesi No: 21, 38050, Kayseri, Turkey

    Safvet ORS

Authors
  1. Safvet ORS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Safvet ORS.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval of the retrospective clinical study was granted by the research ethics committee.

Informed Consent

Informed consent form was used for this study.

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

ORS, S. Nipple Dimensions After Augmentation Mammoplasty, Mastopexy and Reduction Mammoplasty: A Comparative Clinical Study. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 2089–2093 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01861-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01861-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation