Literature DB >> 32590526

The Central Mound Pedicle: A Safe and Effective Technique for Reduction Mammaplasty.

Michael R DeLong1, Irene Chang1, Matt Farajzadeh1, Edward H Nahabet1, Jason Roostaeian1, Jaco Festekjian1, James Rough1, Andrew L Da Lio1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The central mound technique offers a relatively less common approach for breast reduction. This study evaluated the expected safety and efficacy outcomes using this technique in a large patient series.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing central mound breast reduction at the authors' institution between June of 1999 and November of 2018 was performed. Both bilateral macromastia and unilateral symmetrizing reduction patients were included but evaluated separately for some outcomes. Patient demographics and comorbidities, operative details, postoperative adverse events, and BREAST-Q scores were recorded. Associations between preoperative variables and outcomes were assessed with chi-square tests, Wilcoxon tests, and Kendall tau-b correlations.
RESULTS: A total of 325 patients were identified for inclusion (227 bilateral and 98 unilateral; 552 breasts). The average patient age was 46 years, and the average body mass index was 27.4 kg/m. Among the bilateral macromastia patients, the average operative time was 3 hours 34 minutes, and average breast tissue removed was 533 g (right breast) and 560 g (left breast). Among all patients, average follow-up was 169 days. On a per-breast basis for all patients, the following complication rates were observed: seroma, 0.2 percent; hematoma, 1.1 percent; dehiscence, 2.9 percent; infection, 1.5 percent; hypertrophic scar, 4.6 percent; nipple necrosis, 0.4 percent; fat necrosis, 0.9 percent; and skin flap necrosis, 1.7 percent. Using the BREAST-Q Reduction/Mastopexy questions on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, restricted to the bilateral macromastia patient population, all scores improved with statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: The central mound pedicle is a safe and effective approach for reduction mammaplasty for both bilateral macromastia patients and unilateral symmetrizing operations. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32590526     DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  5 in total

1.  Delayed Mastopexy Following Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy: A Case-Control Study to Evaluate Safety and Versatility of the Central Mound Technique.

Authors:  Stefania Tenna; Marco Morelli Coppola; Rosa Salzillo; Mauro Barone; Beniamino Brunetti; Barbara Cagli; Annalisa Cogliandro; Paolo Persichetti
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 2.326

2.  Innovative Application of Three-Dimensional-Printed Breast Model-Aided Reduction Mammaplasty.

Authors:  Shaoheng Xiong; Bei E; Zhaoxiang Zhang; Jiezhang Tang; Xiangke Rong; Haibo Gong; Chenggang Yi
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-06-09

3.  Impact of Patient and Operative Factors on Nipple-Areola Complex Sensation after Bilateral Reduction Mammaplasty.

Authors:  Jesse I Payton; Jasson T Abraham; Matthew D Novak; Kendall P Hammonds; Andrew Altman
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-06-02

4.  A Review and Measurement Study of the Central Mound Pedicle for Breast Reduction.

Authors:  Eric Swanson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2021-06-07

5.  Predictive risk factors of complications in reduction mammoplasty-analysis of three different pedicles.

Authors:  Johanna Palve; Marika Kuuskeri; Tiina Luukkaala; Eija Suorsa
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.