Abstract
Background
Healthy breast surgery constitutes an important step to achieve symmetry in unilateral implant-based reconstructions. We analysed long-term results of breast symmetry obtained with reduction mammaplasties, and we evaluated whether different glandular pedicles may better preserve long-term stability.
Method
Between 2006 and 2012, 90 patients underwent mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with tissue expanders and simultaneous contralateral reduction mammaplasty. In 30 patients, a superior nipple–areola pedicle was harvested (GROUP A), in another 30 patients a medial pedicle was performed (GROUP B), and an inferior pedicle was used in the remaining 30 women (GROUP C). An objective evaluation of the reconstructed breast and the reduced one was performed at 1 and 24 months after surgery. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests were used for analysis. Furthermore, three independent plastic surgeons filled out a questionnaire to assess aesthetic results.
Results
Measurements of the reconstructed breasts showed similar variations between 1- and 24-month evaluations within the three groups with no significant difference (P value >0.05). Measurements of the reduced breast at the 1- and 24-month follow-up (Tukey’s test) revealed significant differences among the three groups. Patients from GROUP C showed a significantly higher decrease in Δ nipple–lower clavicle margin distance and Δ nipple–inframammary fold compared to GROUP A and B (P value = 0.01). Surgeons’ assessments revealed no statistically significant difference between the three groups.
Conclusion
Superior or medial pedicle reduction mammaplasties seem to better preserve breast shape and position, and they maintain a more similar appearance to the contralateral prosthetic breast over time.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Leone MS, Priano V, Franchelli S, Puggioni V, Merlo DF, Mannucci M, Santi PL (2011) Factors affecting symmetrization of the contralateral breast: a 7-year unilateral postmastectomy breast reconstruction experience. Aesth Plast Surg 35:446–451
Bostwick J (1983) Breast reduction. In: Bostwick J (ed) Aesthetic and recostructive surgery. St.Louis, CV Mosby, pp 137–208
Davison SP, Mesbahi AN, Ducic I, Sarcia M, Dayan J, Spear SL (2007) The versatility of the superomedial pedicle with various skin reduction patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:1466–1476
Zingaretti N, De Lorenzi F, Dell’Antonia F, De Biasio F, Riccio M, Parodi PC (2016) The use of precapsular space in secondary breast reconstruction. Aesth Plast Surg 40:716–723
Moustafa A, Fakhr I (2014) Outcome of different oncoplastic surgical (OPs) techniques for centrally located breast cancer (CLBC). J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 26:203–209
Semprini G, Cattin F, Vaienti L, Brizzolari M, Cedolini C, Parodi PC (2013) Oncoplastic surgery and cancer relapses: cosmetic and oncological results in 489 patients. The Breast 22:946–951
Chang EI, Peled AW, Foster RD, Zeidler KR, Ewing CA, Alvarado M, Hwang ES, Esserman LJ (2012) Evaluating the feasibility of extended partial mastectomy and immediate reduction mammoplasty reconstruction as an alternative to mastectomy. Ann Surg 255:1151–1157
Nano MT, Gill PG, Kollias J, Bochner MA, Malycha P, Winefield HR (2005) Psychological impact and cosmetic outcome of surgical breast cancer strategies. ANZ J Surg 75:940–947
Salgarello M, Visconti G, Barone-Adesi L, Franceschini G, Masetti R (2015) Controlateral breast symmetrisation in immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction after unilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy: the tailored reduction/augmentation mammaplasty. Arch Plast Surg 42:302–308
Kaviani A, Safavi A (2015) Immediate and delayed contralateral symmetrization in oncoplastic breast reduction: patients’ choices and technique formulation. PRS GO 3:e286
Purohit S (2008) Reduction mammoplasty. Indian J Plast Surg 41:S64–S79
Makboul M, Abdelhaimid MS, Al-Attar GS (2016) Long-term follow-up ad patient satisfaction after reduction mammoplasty: superomedial versus inferior pedicle. Indian J Plast Surg 49:214–219
Saleem L, John JR (2013) Unfavourable results following reduction mammoplasty. Indian J Plast Surg 46:401–407
Brown R, Izaddoost S, Bullocks JM (2010) Preventing the “bottoming out” and “star-gazing” phenomena in inferior pedicle breast reduction with an acellular dermal matrix internal brasserie. Aesth Plast Surg 34:760–767
White DJ, Maxwell GP (2000) Reduction mammoplasty. In: Achauer BM, Eriksson E, Guymon B, Coleman JJ III, Russell RC, Nander Kolh A et al (eds) Plastic surgery indications, operations, and outcomes. Mosby, St Louis, pp 2705–2743
Okoro SA, Barone C, Bohnenblust M, Wang HT (2008) Breast reduction trend among plastic surgeons: a national survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1312–1320
Widgerow AD (2005) Breast reduction with inferior pedicle fascial suspension. Aesth Plast Surg 29:532–537
Perez-Macias JM (2007) Long-lasting evolution of ptosis control after reduction mammaplasty using the hammock technique. Aesth Plast Surg 31:266–274
Acknowledgements
All authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements) or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationship, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. I sincerely thank Domenico Luca Grieco.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Biasio, F., Zingaretti, N., De Lorenzi, F. et al. Reduction Mammaplasty for Breast Symmetrisation in Implant-Based Reconstructions. Aesth Plast Surg 41, 773–781 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0867-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-017-0867-2