BACKGROUND: The superomedial pedicle vertical scar breast reduction is gaining popularity for its round, projecting breast and shorter incision when compared with the traditional Wise-pattern reduction using an inferior pedicle. However, there is a paucity of large-volume institutional outcomes studies identifying how this technique fares against more traditional methods of reduction. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of bilateral breast reductions over a 3-year period was performed. One hundred superomedial breast reductions (50 patients) were matched to 100 inferior pedicle breast reductions (50 patients). Matching was implemented based on age (±3 years) and size of reduction (±200 g). Patient demographics, size of reduction, nipple-areola complex sensitivity, minor and major postoperative complications, and symptomatic relief were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS Version 9.2. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients underwent 424 bilateral breast reductions between January of 2009 and June of 2012 at a single institution. Mean volume of tissue reduced was 815 g per breast (range, 200 to 2068 g) and 840 g per breast (range, 250 to 2014 g), respectively. All patients achieved symptomatic relief. No statistical difference in major or minor complications was seen between the two cohorts. No statistical difference in major or minor complications was seen between the two cohorts. No significant difference in complications was seen between small- and large-volume reductions. CONCLUSION: Superomedial pedicle vertical scar breast reduction is a novel, alternative mammaplasty technique with excellent functional and aesthetic outcomes which can be used for a wide range of macromastia without a significant difference in complication rates when compared with traditional Wise pattern inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
BACKGROUND: The superomedial pedicle vertical scar breast reduction is gaining popularity for its round, projecting breast and shorter incision when compared with the traditional Wise-pattern reduction using an inferior pedicle. However, there is a paucity of large-volume institutional outcomes studies identifying how this technique fares against more traditional methods of reduction. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of bilateral breast reductions over a 3-year period was performed. One hundred superomedial breast reductions (50 patients) were matched to 100 inferior pedicle breast reductions (50 patients). Matching was implemented based on age (±3 years) and size of reduction (±200 g). Patient demographics, size of reduction, nipple-areola complex sensitivity, minor and major postoperative complications, and symptomatic relief were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed with SAS Version 9.2. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve patients underwent 424 bilateral breast reductions between January of 2009 and June of 2012 at a single institution. Mean volume of tissue reduced was 815 g per breast (range, 200 to 2068 g) and 840 g per breast (range, 250 to 2014 g), respectively. All patients achieved symptomatic relief. No statistical difference in major or minor complications was seen between the two cohorts. No statistical difference in major or minor complications was seen between the two cohorts. No significant difference in complications was seen between small- and large-volume reductions. CONCLUSION: Superomedial pedicle vertical scar breast reduction is a novel, alternative mammaplasty technique with excellent functional and aesthetic outcomes which can be used for a wide range of macromastia without a significant difference in complication rates when compared with traditional Wise pattern inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.