Cargando…

A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements

BACKGROUND: Numerous augmentation/mastopexy methods have been described in the literature, including those reported in 16 publications in 2019. However, objective measurements of breast dimensions are lacking, leaving little information on which to base treatment selection. The goal is to increase u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Swanson, Eric
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33133945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003092
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Numerous augmentation/mastopexy methods have been described in the literature, including those reported in 16 publications in 2019. However, objective measurements of breast dimensions are lacking, leaving little information on which to base treatment selection. The goal is to increase upper pole projection using an implant and correct ptosis by elevating the lower pole with the mastopexy. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted to identify published augmentation/mastopexy methods. Lateral photographs were matched for size and orientation and then compared using a 2-dimensional measurement system. Measurements were compared for 5 common approaches—vertical; periareolar; inverted-T, central mound; inverted-T, superior pedicle; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle. Four publications not fitting these 5 groups were also evaluated. Measurement parameters included breast projection, upper pole projection, lower pole level, breast mound elevation, nipple level, area, and breast parenchymal ratio. RESULTS: A total of 106 publications were identified; 32 publications included lateral photographs suitable for comparison. Twenty-eight publications fitting 1 of the 5 groups were compared. All published augmentation/mastopexy methods increased breast projection and upper pole projection, although not significantly for inverted-T methods. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy was the only method that significantly raised the lower pole level (P < 0.05). The vertical technique also significantly (P < 0.01) increased the breast parenchymal ratio. Periareolar; inverted-T, central mound; and inverted-T, inferior pedicle methods produced nonsignificant increments in the breast parenchymal ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Breast implants increase breast projection and upper pole projection. Only vertical augmentation/mastopexy significantly elevates the lower pole. This method also significantly increases the breast parenchymal ratio, achieving the surgical objectives.