Repeat reduction mammaplasty

Repeat reduction mammaplasty is an uncommonly performed procedure. Currently, no clear operative guidelines of management exist. Sixteen patients (28 breasts) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 13 to 52 years) underwent repeat breast reduction over an 11-year period. Before the first reduction, the mean notch to nipple distance was 29.6 cm (range, 24 to 38 cm) and mean nipple to inframammary crease distance was 15.5 cm (range, 12 to 18 cm). The mean mass of tissue excised was 615 g per breast. A number of different pedicles were used (six inferior, five superior, four superomedial, one unknown). All patients subsequently developed pseudoptosis. The nipple to inframammary crease distance was a mean of 11.4 cm (having initially been set at 7 cm) before the second procedure. At the second operation, two patients (three breasts) had their initial pedicles transected and the nipple-areola complex moved, and both patients developed vascular compromise of the nipple-areola complex (two breasts). Where the same pedicle was used in the second operation (five patients, 10 breasts), one patient developed unilateral nipple-areola complex necrosis. In eight patients, because of the development of pseudoptosis, the nipple was in a satisfactory position, and therefore only an inferior wedge of tissue required excision. This was performed without nipple-areola complex compromise, irrespective of the initial pedicle. The mean mass of tissue excised in the second operation was 325 g per breast (range, 120 to 620 g). Fourteen patients were available for follow-up after a mean of 5.1 years (range, 3 months to 11.7 years) following the repeat reduction mammaplasty. In the repeat breast reduction, where nipple-areola complex transposition is planned, the initial pedicle should be reused to maintain nipple-areola complex perfusion. Where the initial pedicle is not known, a free nipple graft may be the safest option. In patients with pseudoptosis, in whom the nipple does not require transposition, an inferior wedge of tissue can be safely excised, irrespective of the initial pedicle.     

Periareolar reduction mammaplasty

This paper examines the technique of periareolar reduction mammaplasty. Periareolar reduction mammaplasty is a less aggressive procedure than traditional techniques. It preserves a greater number of central glandular lobules, as well as the papillary artery and nerve. It can be performed under local anesthesia, and the area to be anesthetized is smaller because the amount of breast tissue to be resected is reduced. The sutures required number less than a third of those used for conventional techniques, and operative time is shorter. The greatest advantage is the inconspicuous periareolar scar left, combined with an acceptable result for both surgeon and patient.     

Arch reduction mammaplasty

Arch mammaplasty is a breast reduction technique based on the inferior pedicle. It uses all the specific advantages of the inferior pedicle while avoiding the inframammary scars and dead space that occur with the inverted T technique. Arch mammaplasty has proven versatile and extremely safe, and it has a surprisingly good rate of acceptance by the patients. The scarring is aesthetically superior to that obtained with the well-accepted, inverted-T scar technique of the past.     

Breast sensitivity after vertical mammaplasty

Breast sensation after reduction mammaplasty is a major concern for surgeons and patients. The sensitivity of 80 breasts that were reduced using Lejour's technique (a superior dermoglandular pedicle with resection at the lower quadrants) was assessed in a prospective study. Ten points were selected on each breast for this study, including the nipple, four points on the areola, and five points on the breast skin. The measurements were performed preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Pressure thresholds were measured with 20 Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments, temperature sensitivity with hot and cold metal probes, vibratory thresholds with the Biotesiometer, and static and moving two-point discrimination tests with a Disk-Criminator. To assess the influence of breast ptosis and hypertrophy on sensitivity, the population was divided into two groups. In group I (19 patients), the sternal notch-to-nipple distance was less than 29 cm, and less than 500 g of tissue per breast was removed. In group II (21 patients), the sternal notch-to-nipple distance was more than 29 cm, and more than 500 g of tissue was resected. The sensitivity on the nipple and areola was significantly decreased at 3 and 6 months postoperatively for all modalities. At 1 year, sensitivity recovered, and no breast or nipple-areola complex was insensitive. Pressure sensitivity was not significantly different from the preoperative measurement in any area of the breast or in either group of patients, except for superior breast skin, for which sensitivity was improved in group II (p = 0.0004). Temperature sensitivity in group I was not different preoperatively and postoperatively, but in group II, a significant decrease was observed in sensitivity for the nipple and areola (p = 0.01 and 0.004, respectively). Vibratory sensitivity was significantly decreased on the nipple, the areola, and the inferior breast skin (p = 0.01, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively) in group II but not in group I.In conclusion, ptotic or moderately hypertrophied breasts that were reduced using Lejour's technique recovered their preoperative level of sensitivity after an initial postoperative decline. However, in large breasts, although pressure sensitivity recovered after 1 year, temperature and vibration sensitivity remained diminished on the nipple-areola complex.     

Simplifying the vertical reduction mammaplasty

The vertical reduction mammaplasty is an evolving technique. Its proponents report significantly decreased scarring, better breast shape, and more stable results compared with the standard inverted-T method, but the learning curve is long and cosmetic outcomes can be inconsistent. Many surgeons have experimented with the vertical closure before returning to methods more familiar to them. The authors present their modifications to the vertical reduction mammaplasty. Their changes simplify the preoperative markings and the intraoperative technique to shorten the learning curve while maintaining reliable aesthetic results. With the patient standing, only four preoperative marks are made: (1) the inframammary fold; (2) the breast axis; (3) the apex of the new nipple-areola complex; and (4) the medial and lateral limbs of the vertical incision. In the operating room, a medial or a superomedial pedicle is developed. Excess breast skin is resected with the inferior and lateral parenchyma as a C-shaped wedge. The lateral skin-adipose flap is redraped inferomedially and sutured to the chest wall. The inferior aspect of the breast is aggressively debulked and a gathering subcuticular stitch is started 2 cm below the nadir of the nipple-areola complex. Finally, a 38-mm to 42-mm nipple-areola complex marker is used to create a circular defect that is offset 0.5 cm medial to the vertical axis of the breast. In their series, 56 patients were treated and no major complications were noted. The median follow-up period was 17 months. The average reduction was 554.5 g per breast; however, the reduction was greater than 1000 g per breast in eight patients. The authors found that (1) chest wall anchoring improves lateral contour and minimizes axillary fullness; (2) aggressive debulking inferiorly avoids the persistent inferior bulge; and (3) starting the subcuticular gathering suture 2 cm below the nipple-areola complex followed by placement of a nipple-areola complex marker at the conclusion of the case prevents lateral deviation and corrects the nipple-areola complex teardrop deformity. These innovations accelerate the learning curve by simplifying the preoperative markings and lead to more consistent postoperative results and an improved cosmetic outcome. In conclusion, these modifications yield a simple, easily learned vertical reduction mammaplasty with aesthetically reliable results.     

Mammographic changes following reduction mammaplasty

Mammographic findings after reduction mammaplasty may be similar to those seen with carcinoma. A knowledge of the expected mammographic alterations would be helpful in differentiating postoperative changes from those seen with carcinoma of the breast. Accordingly, the clinical records and mammograms of patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center between March of 1977 and July of 1985 were analyzed. Forty-two patients had at least one mammographic examination following reduction mammaplasty. Periareolar soft-tissue changes and inferior pole alterations were present in almost all examinations of patients during the first 6 months after operation, but they decreased during the next few years. Asymmetrical densities were present in approximately half the patients throughout the follow-up period but decreased in degree. Parenchymal calcifications occurred later; few x-rays showed these calcifications during the first year, but 50 percent were apparent after 2 years. Evidence of fat necrosis occurred in approximately 10 percent. Four patients had biopsies for suspicious densities. Chronic inflammation and inclusion cyst were reported. We believe that changes after reduction mammaplasty are predictable and can usually be differentiated from those associated with cancer.     

Superomedial pedicle technique of reduction mammaplasty

A series of 148 patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty utilizing the superomedial pedicle technique is presented. Resections as large as 4100 gm per breast with nipple-areola transpositions up to 30 cm were done with reliable nipple-areola survival, including preservation of sensation. The superior pedicle technique of breast reduction is recognized by many as technically easier and capable of producing a longer-lasting aesthetic effect. Classically, however, it has been limited to smaller resections. By incorporating the medial quadrant in the superior pedicle, more aggressive reductions can be safely undertaken with the same excellent results. Details of the procedure, the anatomic basis for its success, and complications are discussed.