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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |
_version_ | 1783591848375222272 |
---|---|
author | Swanson, Eric |
author_facet | Swanson, Eric |
author_sort | Swanson, Eric |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7544397 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75443972020-10-29 A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements Swanson, Eric Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Cosmetic 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. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2020-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7544397/ /pubmed/33133945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000003092 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Cosmetic Swanson, Eric A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements |
title | A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements |
title_full | A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements |
title_fullStr | A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements |
title_short | A Comparison of 28 Published Augmentation/Mastopexy Techniques Using Photographic Measurements |
title_sort | comparison of 28 published augmentation/mastopexy techniques using photographic measurements |
topic | Cosmetic |
url | 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 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT swansoneric acomparisonof28publishedaugmentationmastopexytechniquesusingphotographicmeasurements AT swansoneric comparisonof28publishedaugmentationmastopexytechniquesusingphotographicmeasurements |