Literature DB >> 1950802

Subjective comparison of six different reduction mammoplasty procedures.

L Hang-Fu1.   

Abstract

There are an increasing number of young patients seeking an ideal reduction mammoplasty. The ideal procedure must obtain a youthful-looking result, minimal scarring, preservation of lactation, erotic sensitivity, and no postoperative complications. We have done a subjective comparison of six different reduction mammoplasty procedures by using a mail questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised three categories: (I) alleviating preoperative complaints, (II) postoperative appearance, and (III) postoperative complications. In category I, greater than 95% of all preoperative complaints were alleviated in all groups of patients. In category II, McKissock's and Robbins' procedures scored the best for nipple-areola position, with highest number of patients (40.5%) in the free nipple group appreciating the overall breast symmetry. In category III, the modified Regnault group (H/B) had the lowest overall complication rate. Only 33% of the patients in H/B group experienced failure to lactate and 26% experienced loss of erotic nipple sensation for longer than six months. In our study, we show that the H/B mammoplasty procedure was rated best overall and was the best compared with the concept of an "ideal" procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1950802     DOI: 10.1007/bf02273876

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  9 in total

1.  The Regnault "B" technique in mastopexy and breast reduction: a 12-year review.

Authors:  J M Parenteau; P Regnault
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 2.326

2.  Mammoplasty with an L-shaped limited scar and retropectoral dermopexy.

Authors:  E De Longis
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.326

3.  Reduction mammaplasty: a comparison between the Robbins and Pontes techniques.

Authors:  A Freiberg; J B Boyd
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Reduction mammaplasty by the Robbins technique.

Authors:  T H Robbins
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Results following reduction mammaplasty as evaluated by the patients.

Authors:  M Pers; I M Nielsen; N Gerner
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 1.539

6.  Reduction mammoplasty.

Authors:  G Peixoto
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 2.326

7.  Reduction mammoplasty: some observations and reflections.

Authors:  J O Strömbeck
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.326

8.  Complications of reduction mammaplasty: comparison of nipple-areolar graft and pedicle.

Authors:  D B Hawtof; M Levine; D I Kapetansky; D Pieper
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 1.539

9.  Reduction mammaplasty using the inferior glandular "pyramid" pedicle: experiences with 300 patients.

Authors:  W E Bolger; A E Seyfer; S M Jackson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 4.730

  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  Reduction mammoplasty by the central pedicle, avoiding a vertical scar.

Authors:  N Savaci
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1996 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.326

2.  Reduction mammaplasty: a safe and effective outpatient procedure.

Authors:  K K Short; S L Ringler; B P Bengtson; J P Hunstad; E Henry
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  1996 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.326

Review 3.  The impact of breast reduction surgery on breastfeeding: Systematic review of observational studies.

Authors:  Roni Y Kraut; Erin Brown; Christina Korownyk; Lauren S Katz; Ben Vandermeer; Oksana Babenko; M Shirley Gross; Sandy Campbell; G Michael Allan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Transcriptomic and cellular decoding of regional brain vulnerability to neurogenetic disorders.

Authors:  Jakob Seidlitz; Ajay Nadig; Siyuan Liu; Richard A I Bethlehem; Petra E Vértes; Sarah E Morgan; František Váša; Rafael Romero-Garcia; François M Lalonde; Liv S Clasen; Jonathan D Blumenthal; Casey Paquola; Boris Bernhardt; Konrad Wagstyl; Damon Polioudakis; Luis de la Torre-Ubieta; Daniel H Geschwind; Joan C Han; Nancy R Lee; Declan G Murphy; Edward T Bullmore; Armin Raznahan
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 14.919

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.