Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-Term Changes in Nipple-Areolar Complex Position and Inferior Pole Length in Superomedial Pedicle Inverted ‘T’ Scar Reduction Mammaplasty

  • Original Article
  • Breast
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Proper nipple-areolar complex position in reduction mammoplasty patients is a challenging problem regardless of the preferred technique. Postoperatively, the nipple-areolar complex is often not located at the most projected area of the breast. This retrospective observational study aimed to find the long-term measurements of the nipple-areolar complex position and inferior pole length after inverted T scar-superomedial pedicle reduction mammoplasty.

Methods

Forty-eight female patients (96 breasts) were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were that no previous operation should have been done on any of the breasts and both NAC complexes should be at least 30 cm from the midclavicular point. Preoperatively, the distance from the midclavicular point to the new nipple was recorded. All patients were operated on with the inverted T pattern and superomedial pedicle technique. The resection weights, the distance from the midclavicular point to the nipple distance, and the distance from the NAC lower border to the inframammary fold were evaluated postoperatively with an average of 15-month follow-up.

Results

The mean preoperative distance from the midclavicular point to the nipple was 34.21 cm for the right breast and 34.26 cm for the left breast. The mean resection weight per breast was 1035 g for the right breast and 1081 g for the left breast. The descent of the NAC was 1.61 cm for the right breast and 1.79 cm for left breast (mean: 1.7 cm) at the end of the follow-up. Additionally, the inframammary length increased 3.31 cm for the right breast and 3.59 cm for the left breast (mean: 3.45 cm).

Conclusion

In this study, we found that the new nipple-areolar complex does not go upward but goes downward. However, it was not located at the most projected area of the breast as it was set intra-operatively. This was because the lower pole of the breast sagged more than the nipple: clinically, we observed a nipple superior displacement of 1.75 cm (3.45 − 1.7 = 1.75). According to this calculation, we believe that the new nipple position should be marked at 1.5–1.75 cm below the most projected area of the breast after final shaping so that in the long term, the nipple-areolar complex would be at the proper position.

Level of Evidence V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmad J, Lista F (2008) Vertical scar reduction mammaplasty: the fate of nipple-areola complex position and inferior pole length. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(4):1084–1091

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Akyurek M (2011) Contouring the inferior pole of the breast in vertical mammaplasty: suction-assisted lipectomy versus direct defatting. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(3):1314–1322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amini P et al (2010) Vertical reduction mammaplasty combined with a superomedial pedicle in gigantomastia. Ann Plast Surg 64(3):279–285

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freiberg A, Carr M (1994) Reduction mammaplasty: position of the nipple-areolar complex after long-term follow-up. Can J Plast Surg 2:117

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gulyas G (2004) Marking the position of the nipple-areola complex for mastopexy and breast reduction surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(7):2085–2090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hall-Findlay EJ (2010) The three breast dimensions: analysis and effecting change. Plast Reconstr Surg 125(6):1632–1642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hall-Findlay EJ (1999) A simplified vertical reduction mammaplasty: shortening the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(3):748–759

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Landau AG, Hudson DA (2008) Choosing the superomedial pedicle for reduction mammaplasty in gigantomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 121(3):735–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lassus C (1999) Update on vertical mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 104(7):2289–2298 discussion 2299–2304

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meshulam-Derazon S et al (2009) Large-volume breast reduction: long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 43(2):65–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Okoro SA et al (2008) Breast reduction trend among plastic surgeons: a national survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 122(5):1312–1320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reus WF, Mathes SJ (1988) Preservation of projection after reduction mammaplasty: long-term follow-up of the inferior pedicle technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 82(4):644–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Small KH, Tepper OM, Unger JG, Kumar N, Feldman DL, Choi M, Karp NS (2010) Re-defining pseudoptosis from a 3D perspective after short scar-medial pedicle reduction mammaplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (Feb) 63(2):346–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Spear SL, Howard MA (2003) Evolution of the vertical reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(3):855–868 quiz 869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zehm S et al (2012) Inferior pole length and long-term aesthetic outcome after superior and inferior pedicled reduction mammaplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(5):1128–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest between the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey

    Zeynep Karaçor Altuntaş, Mehmet Dadacı & Bilsev İnce

  2. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Haldun Onuralp Kamburoğlu

  3. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, Meram Research and Training Hospital, Konya, Turkey

    Nurten Yavuz

Authors
  1. Zeynep Karaçor Altuntaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haldun Onuralp Kamburoğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nurten Yavuz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mehmet Dadacı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bilsev İnce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haldun Onuralp Kamburoğlu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altuntaş, Z.K., Kamburoğlu, H.O., Yavuz, N. et al. Long-Term Changes in Nipple-Areolar Complex Position and Inferior Pole Length in Superomedial Pedicle Inverted ‘T’ Scar Reduction Mammaplasty. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 325–330 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0470-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0470-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation