Ren Thomas, Galenchik-Chan Andre, Wang Katherine, Bui Duc T
Renassaince School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Jul 9. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-05041-1.
Historically, the inferior pedicle (IFP) procedure has been the dominant technique for the treatment of macromastia; however, the superomedial pedicle (SMP) approach allows for decreased operative times, reduced incision tension, and improved and longer lasting superior pole fullness. The goal of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with the inferior pedicle and superomedial pedicle approaches to reduction mammoplasty.
This retrospective study was conducted through a single surgeon's experience with a total of 444 patients from 2005-2024. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their breast reduction pedicle type. Chi-square tests and linear regression analysis were utilized to compare patient characteristics and surgical outcomes of the two pedicle types.
Of the total 444 reduction mammoplasty patients, 114 (25.7%) underwent the IFP technique and 330 (74.3%) underwent the SMP reduction. Patients in the IFP cohort had a significantly higher total complication rate of 57.0%, while the SMP cohort had a total complication rate of 46.1%. The prevalence of cellulitis was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups. 21.9% of IFP patients developed cellulitis post-operatively compared to 7.0% of SMP patients.
This study supports the notion that superior pedicle reduction mammoplasty is as safe and may result in fewer complications than the current inferior pedicle standard. The overall complication rate, and specifically prevalence of cellulitis within the IFP technique may be attributed to four main factors: operative time, weight of breast resected, BMI, and drain status. Given the lack of similar findings in the literature, we believe our results may reflect differences in preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative management. Both techniques appear to have comparable complication rates and should remain essential skills for surgeons.
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 .
从历史上看,下蒂(IFP)手术一直是治疗巨乳症的主要技术;然而,上内侧蒂(SMP)入路可缩短手术时间、降低切口张力,并改善和持久保持上极丰满度。本研究的目的是调查和比较下蒂和上内侧蒂入路乳房缩小成形术的临床结果及并发症。
本回顾性研究基于一位外科医生在2005年至2024年期间对444例患者的经验开展。根据乳房缩小术的蒂类型将患者分为两个队列。采用卡方检验和线性回归分析比较两种蒂类型患者的特征和手术结果。
在444例乳房缩小成形术患者中,114例(25.7%)采用了IFP技术,330例(74.3%)采用了SMP缩小术。IFP队列患者的总并发症发生率显著更高,为57.0%,而SMP队列的总并发症发生率为46.1%。蜂窝织炎的发生率是两组之间唯一具有统计学意义的差异。IFP患者术后发生蜂窝织炎的比例为21.9%,而SMP患者为7.0%。
本研究支持以下观点,即上蒂乳房缩小成形术与目前的下蒂标准一样安全,且并发症可能更少。IFP技术的总体并发症发生率,尤其是蜂窝织炎的发生率,可能归因于四个主要因素:手术时间、切除乳房的重量、BMI和引流情况。鉴于文献中缺乏类似的研究结果,我们认为我们的结果可能反映了术前患者特征和术后管理的差异。两种技术的并发症发生率似乎相当,应仍然是外科医生的基本技能。
证据级别III:本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据级别。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或作者在线指南www.springer.com/00266 。