- Research article
- Open Access
A versatile breast reduction technique: Conical plicated central U shaped (COPCUs) mammaplasty
© Copcu; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
- Received: 07 May 2009
- Accepted: 03 July 2009
- Published: 03 July 2009
There have been numerous studies on reduction mammaplasty and its modifications in the literature. The multitude of modifications of reduction mammaplasty indicates that the ideal technique has yet to be found. There are four reasons for seeking the ideal technique. One reason is to preserve functional features of the breast: breastfeeding and arousal. Other reasons are to achieve the real geometric and aesthetic shape of the breast with the least scar and are to minimize complications of prior surgical techniques without causing an additional complication. Last reason is the limitation of the techniques described before. To these aims, we developed a new versatile reduction mammaplasty technique, which we called conical plicated central U shaped (COPCUs) mammaplasty.
We performed central plication to achieve a juvenile look in the superior pole of the breast and to prevent postoperative pseudoptosis and used central U shaped flap to achieve maximum NAC safety and to preserve lactation and nipple sensation. The central U flap was 6 cm in width and the superior conical plication was performed with 2/0 PDS. Preoperative and postoperative standard measures of the breast including the superior pole fullness were compared.
Forty six patients were operated with the above mentioned technique. All of the patients were satisfied with functional and aesthetic results and none of them had major complications. There were no changes in the nipple innervation. Six patients becoming pregnant after surgery did not experience any problems with lactation. None of the patients required scar revision.
Our technique is a versatile, safe, reliable technique which creates the least scar, avoids previously described disadvantages, provides maximum preservation of functions, can be employed in all breasts regardless of their sizes.
- Nipple Areola Complex
- Reduction Mammaplasty
- Vertical Scar
- Inferior Pedicle
- Maximum Preservation
A larger pedicle does not necessarily achieve better breast functions. Vessels and nerves of the NAC should be completely preserved. As a matter of fact, a large pedicle may cause such complications as displacement and folding of the flaps . So that the breasts look natural after reduction mammaplasty, it can move to all directions and has a soft texture. It has been emphasized that a gland connected to the ducts and the nipple should be preserved for a successful breastfeeding following breast reduction . However, to our knowledge, there have not been any studies showing how much breast tissue should be preserved for sufficient milk production. Maintenance of lactation should never be disregarded. Therefore, a maximum amount of the gland should be preserved. In all techniques except for the central or total posterior pedicle, the pedicle is not based on the gland only. In fact, most of the candidates for reduction mammaplasty have a high BMI; that is, they have fat tissue as much as breast tissue.
Although vertical scar mammaplasty techniques are quite popular now, the most frequently performed technique is inferior pedicled mammaplasty. Critics cite a longer operating time than for vertical mammoplasties, the known scar problems of the Wise inverted T pattern, and the phenomenon of pseudoptosis, often termed "bottoming out". In our technique, conical plication creates fullness in the superior pole which in turn leads to a juvenile look, the technique does not cause postoperative pseudoptosis which frequently occurs in mammaplasty techniques, central U shaped pedicle allows maximum preservation of functions and the technique is applicable in all breasts irrespective of their sizes. The techniques described in the literature generally were not suitable for very big breasts but our approach is a versatile breast reduction technique. It can be used for all kind of breasts. There is no limitation to the amount of NAC repositioning that can be achieved. In short, maximum preservation of functions and an aesthetic breast with minimum scar are the main goals of the COPCUs mammaplasty.
This technique was a modification of the total posterior pedicled mammaplasty described by Moufarrege. The most important feature of the technique was that the central U shaped pedicle was a total posterior pedicle. The "open sky" approach was used and all tissues were easily accessible. Thus, the desirable shape was given and maximum preservation of all anatomical structures was achieved. While central U shaped pedicle was being created, peripheral tissues were resected and posterior and superior connections of the pedicle were preserved completely. The pedicle directly carried the NAC and all vascular and neural connections of the pedicle were preserved.
For quality scar evaluation we used visual analog scale. According to scale 0 was unacceptable scar must be corrected surgically and 10 was excellent scar. Patients were evaluated their scars after 6 months post-operatively. The patients were followed minimum six months post-operatively (6 months – 36 months).
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal
Data of the patients:
Jugular notch to nipple distance
31 cm. (median)
21 cm. (median)
Nipple to inframammarial crease
Resection weight(per breast)
None of the patients had such major complications as necrosis, partial or total NAC loss. None of them required revision surgery. Two days after removal of the drainage tubes, two patients had minimal hematoma, which was treated conventionally. Two patients had about 1 cm opening on the NAC and suture line, but they healed spontaneously. Quality of the scars were scored by the patients themselves and median was 9, ranging with 7 to 10. All patients were satisfied with aesthetic results. We never performed scar revision surgery. Although we did not make investigational laboratory studies for the sensation of the nipple, none of the patients reported decreased sensual or sexual sensibility in the short term and long term. Six patients gave birth after operation and none of them had lactation difficulties according to their experience. According to their history, they did not need supplementation in first 6 months of breastfeeding.
Reduction mammaplasty is one of the most frequently performed operations by plastic surgeons. There have been numerous modifications of reduction mammaplasty . It may be that the breast has a very complex geometric structure and very different anatomical components. Reduction mammaplasty techniques described so far are named after locations of pedicles. Among them are inferior, lateral, media, central, total posterior pedicle and mixed [14–18].
The leading cause of ongoing attempts to seek an ideal technique is complications such as failure to achieve the desirable aesthetic result, decreased or lack of lactation, decreased or loss of sensual and erogenous feeling of the nipple, insufficient projection and postoperative pseudoptosis and wound healing problems. Ultimate goal of any pedicle is to provide sufficient blood supply to the nipple areola complex. It has been reported that superior pedicled mammaplasty causes considerable changes in blood circulation due to the transposition of the pedicle and that there is decreased NAC sensation in the superior pedicle in the short term. The nerves innervate the NAC can be easily injured with inferior pole resections with superior pedicle techniques [19, 20]. Bottoming out, inferior pole excess or pseudo ptosis, is more frequent in inferior based pedicles . Attempts to seek reduction mammaplasty techniques preserving the NAC emerged from the results of the studies by Bisenberger. However, they revealed considerably high rates of complications. An effective way to prevent complications is to know the breast anatomy well, especially the vascular anatomy of the breast.
The classical pattern of blood supply to the breast was first described by Manchot in 1889 and later, Marcus showed that the breast had three different patterns of blood supply . The most recent and extensive study on the issue was performed by Wuringer in 1998. Wuringer examined 28 female breasts and described a horizontal septum extending from fifth rib toward the nipple, dividing the blood supply into a cranial and caudal network. Deventer on 27 cadaver dissections in 2004 demonstrated that the blood flow from the nipple had a quite different pattern and that each breast of the same person might have had differences in blood flow from the nipples. These findings indicated that the tissue below the nipples, especially the horizontal septum should be preserved.
Nipple necrosis is the most frightening complication of reduction mammaplasty. The rates of nipple necrosis have been reported to be 2.1% in the superodermal pedicle, 2.3% in the superolateral and 0.8% in inferior pedicle. The leading cause of nipple necrosis is insufficient arterial blood supply or long-lasting venous congestion; this can be attributed to inadequate knowledge about the vascular anatomy of the NAC and use of long peripheral pedicle and the resultant distortion of the pedicle. However, theoretically total posterior pedicle described by Moufarrege and its modification COPCUs mammaplasty may avoid such complications.
Although the preoperative marking described in the present study resembles the bipedicle modification described by Khan in 2007, it differs in resection and pedicle considerably from that described by Khan. It was inevitable that the horizontal diameter in bipedicled and total central pedicled techniques was larger than expected; fortunately, U shaped pedicle resolved this issue. In addition, two dead spaces -one in the medial and the other in the lateral- remain in bipedicled techniques and fluid and blood accumulate in these spaces in cases of insufficient drainage; however, in U shaped pedicle all spaces are connected to each other and one effective drainage tube allows collection of fluid and blood. Khan and Moufarrege reported that the biggest advantage of their techniques was preservation of blood supply to the nipple and easy mobilization of the breast towards the superior without loss of viability in the breast tissue. However, U shaped pedicle was more advantageous since it was connected to the NAC both in the superior and in the inferior.
At present, there is a general agreement that the most popular techniques are vertical scar mammaplasty and its modifications. Due to high rate of complications (especially wound healing, seroma) in vertical scar mammaplasty, many modifications were presented literature, but use of vertical scar technique for large breasts still is not widely accepted, especially with use of superior pedicle. Rohrich et al presented results of a survey in 2004. According to this report assessing the trends in breast reduction techniques among the members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery found that the most frequent complications for the limited incision technique group were suture spitting, the need for surgical revision and the loss of nipple sensation. Advantage of the superior pedicle technique is an improved superior projection and a stable long-term shape of the breast as compared with the inferior pedicle techniques. But the use of a superior pedicle supposedly increases the rate of areolar necrosis. The techniques providing most effective blood supply to the breast are those with a central pedicle. The central pedicle technique in current use is the end result of serial modifications of Biesenberger's technique. Balch and Hester used the classical T incision, Peixoto and Hagerty  used vertical incision, Yousif and Lalonde used horizontal scar and Goes  used periareolar technique for central pedicle. Total posterior pedicle was described by Moufarrege[12, 18]. It was called total posterior pedicle since the pedicle was just behind the NAC and the whole posterior pedicle was made of the gland. Total posterior pedicle achieved maximum gland and nipple security and Moufarrege reported low rates of complications in more than 10000 patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty. Moreover, none of them were major complications. Although Moufarrege technique was used of the severe gynecomastia, Moufarrege did not recommend total posterior pedicle for large breasts. The complications of the central breast reduction techniques are few and most of these are related to the inverted T-shsped scar, which is often unsatisfactory from the aesthetic point of view. Since we used vertical scar, we did not have scar problem and never revision surgery was performed for the scar.
The management of gigantomastia is still debatable. Many authors propose that nipple areola graft can be utilized for the management of gigantomastia. In the present study, none of the patients with gigantomastia required grafting. Location of the NAC on a fully preserved posterior pedicle obviated the use of grafts.
It is of great importance to maintain the breast shape for a long time after reduction mammaplasty. However, gravity and tissue dynamics make it difficult. Recurrent ptosis may be a problem in all breast reduction techniques. Hammock technique, dermis strips, synthetic materials, fascia lata and internal bra systems  have been used to eliminate recurrent ptosis. However, all techniques are based on the idea that the pedicle, like a suspensory ligament, should be suspended from the thorax wall. Around the areola, and especially below the areola, an area of de-epithelialised skin is preserved to be used as a bra-like support of the gland. Dermis suspension gives a well-defined shape intra-operatively, which does not change significantly with time.
The philosophy is completely different in the technique presented here. De-epithelized area interacts with the above skin and thus helps to preserve conical plication and decreases effects of gravity. As far as we know, conical plication has not been described in the literature before. The conical plication which we developed is directed towards preservation of the juvenile breast look and superior fullness in the long term.
In 1985, Pennington performed plication and pedicle suspension in the pectoral fascia to prevent bottoming out, a frequently encountered complication of inferior pedicle, and reported his 20-year experience. Pennington made plication, both superficial and deep, in the inferior pole. According to report plication had the effect of lifting the inframmary crease, narrowing the remaining breast mound, and creating a distinct fold in the pedicle. Unlike the plication by Pennington, plication in our technique is performed in the superior only to create a conical appearance. The suture technique used in our mammaplasty is similar to that described by Toonard for MACS lift. The techniques which buries a lower pole breast parenchymal flap underneath a bipedicled pectoralis major muscle flap have not been supported worldwide because they make breast cancer screening difficult and they violate tissue compartment. However, the technique presented here does not damage the tissue since it only involves plication and no problems due to plication were shown in postoperative mammography in the long term. Hawtof et al. studied 268 patients and concluded that complications were significantly more prevalent in women undergoing reductions of greater than 700 gr per breast. The size of the breast was not associated with complications in the present series. This can be ascribed to safety of the pedicle. We did not observe breast feeding difficulties in our patients after surgery. Because peripheral reduction of the gland does not discontinue the lactiferous ducts and no disturbance of breast feeding is to be expected after this kind of reduction mammaplasty.
It is still debatable whether reduction mammaplasty can be used for revision surgery. In this study, four patients underwent our technique for revision. These patients had undergone inferior pedicle and vertical scar mammaoplasty before. The results showed that COPCUs mammaplasty could be used with success regardless of the pedicle created in prior operations.
The rate of complications in this study was found to be 9.5%. They were minor complications which did not require surgical treatment. The rate of complications in the literature has been found to range between 3% and 45% .
According to the results our experience, advantages of COPCUs mammaplasty provides complete safety of the NAC, creates the most natural breast in terms of tissue consistency and mobility, provides fullness in the superior part of the breast and excellent projection Our technique is very easy to perform and teach since open sky approach is used. It does not increase operation time and does not require liposuction. Reverse T scar is avoided and a very small vertical scar, which can be tolerated by patients, is created.
There are not any marked disadvantages of the technique. However, thinning likely to occur in elevation of dermal pedicles may cause skin problems. Although the patients included in this study were heavy smokers, they did not have skin loss. This indicates that dermal flaps have a rich blood supply.
Advantages of this technique should be proven with detailed investigational laboratory studies such as sensorial, angiographical and ductal screening tests. But according to our experience, we speculate that our technique can be used safely for breast reduction and mastopexy.
- Catanuto G, Spano A, Pennati A, Riggio E, Farinella GM, Impoco G, Spoto S, Gallo G, Nava MB: Experimental methodology for digital breast shape analysis and objective surgical outcome evaluation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008,61(3):314–8. 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.11.016View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- McCulley SJ, Hudson DA: Short-scar breast reduction: why all the fuss? Plast Reconstr Surg 2001,107(4):965–9. 10.1097/00006534-200104010-00010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Andrades P, Prado A: Understanding modern breast reduction techniques with a simplified approach. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008,61(11):1284–93. 10.1016/j.bjps.2007.11.060View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy People 2010, Vols I and II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; 2000.Google Scholar
- Nakajima H, Imanishi N, Aiso S: Arterial anatomy of the nipple-areola complex. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995,96(4):843–5. 10.1097/00006534-199509001-00012View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wuringer E, Mader N, Posch E, Holle J: Nerve and vessel supplying ligamentous suspension of the mammary gland. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998,101(6):1486–93. 10.1097/00006534-199805000-00009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Palmer JH, Taylor GI: The vascular territories of the anterior chest wall. Br J Plast Surg 1986,39(3):287–99. 10.1016/0007-1226(86)90037-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Keskin M, Tosun Z, Savaci N: Seventeen years of experience with reduction mammaplasty avoiding a vertical scar. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008,32(4):653–9. 10.1007/s00266-008-9167-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Abramson DL, Pap S, Shifteh S, Glasberg SB: Improving long-term breast shape with the medial pedicle wise pattern breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005,115(7):1937–43. 10.1097/01.PRS.0000165085.23537.A7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cruz NI, Korchin L: Lactational performance after breast reduction with different pedicles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007,120(1):35–40. 10.1097/01.prs.0000263371.37596.49View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pennington DG: Improving the results of inferior pedicle breast reduction using pedicle suspension and plication. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2006,30(4):390–4. 10.1007/s00266-006-0040-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moufarrege R 2006. [http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/topic488.htm]
- Kaplan JL, Rotemberg S, Yetman R, Boggs O, Bena JF, Tang AS, Meisler E: Breast reduction: does the tumescent technique affect reimbursement? Plast Reconstr Surg 2008,122(3):693–700. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181823755View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ceydeli A, Louis J, Yu J, Ritter E: Lateral septal preservation: a technique to improve projection in inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty by preventing lateral displacement of the pedicle. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007,120(4):1088–9. 10.1097/01.prs.0000278185.71693.18View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hefter W, Lindholm P, Elvenes OP: Lactation and breast-feeding ability following lateral pedicle mammaplasty. Br J Plast Surg 2003,56(8):746–51. 10.1016/S0007-1226(03)00368-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nahabedian MY, McGibbon BM, Manson PN: Medial pedicle reduction mammaplasty for severe mammary hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000,105(3):896–904. 10.1097/00006534-200003000-00011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hester TR Jr, Cukic J: Central breast pedicle and "free-hand" technique for alteration of volume and skin envelope of the breast. Clin Plast Surg 1988,15(4):613–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moufarrege R, Beauregard G, Bosse JP, Muller G, Papillon J, Perras C: Reduction mammoplasty by the total dermoglandular pedicle. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1985,9(3):227–32. 10.1007/BF01570855View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schlenz I, Rigel S, Schemper M, Kuzbari R: Alteration of nipple and areola sensitivity by reduction mammaplasty: a prospective comparison of five techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005,115(3):743–51. 10.1097/01.PRS.0000152435.03538.43View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harbo SO, Jorum E, Roald HE: Reduction mammaplasty: a prospective study of symptom relief and alterations of skin sensibility. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003,111(1):103–10. 10.1097/00006534-200301000-00017View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Reus WF, Mathes SJ: Preservation of projection after reduction mammaplasty: long-term follow-up of the inferior pedicle technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988,82(4):644–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Biesenberger H: Ein neue methode der mammoplastik Zentralbl Chir. 1928, 55: 2382.Google Scholar
- van Deventer PV, Page BJ, Graewe FR: The safety of pedicles in breast reduction and mastopexy procedures. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008,32(2):307–12. 10.1007/s00266-007-9070-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blondeel PN, Hamdi M, Sijpe KA, Van Landuyt KH, Thiessen FE, Monstrey SJ: The latero-central glandular pedicle technique for breast reduction. Br J Plast Surg 2003,56(4):348–59. 10.1016/S0007-1226(03)00191-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cardenas-Camarena L, Vergara R: Reduction mammaplasty with superior-lateral dermoglandular pedicle: another alternative. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001,107(3):693–9. 10.1097/00006534-200103000-00007View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mandrekas AD, Zambacos GJ, Anastasopoulos A, Hapsas DA: Reduction mammaplasty with the inferior pedicle technique: early and late complications in 371, patients. Br J Plast Surg 1996,49(7):442–6. 10.1016/S0007-1226(96)90027-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Khan UD: Vertical scar with the bipedicle technique: a modified procedure for breast reduction and mastopexy. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007,31(4):337–42. 10.1007/s00266-006-0243-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Azzam C, De Mey A: Vertical scar mammaplasty in gigantomastia: retrospective study of 115, patients treated using the modified lejour technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007,31(3):294–8. 10.1007/s00266-006-0227-0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rohrich RJ, Gosman AA, Brown SA, Tonadapu P, Foster B: Current preferences for breast reduction techniques: a survey of board-certified plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002,114(7):1724–1733. 10.1097/01.PRS.0000142480.27748.9EView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hidalgo DA: Vertical mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005,115(4):1179–97. 10.1097/01.PRS.0000156335.92606.2AView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Balch CR: The central mound technique for reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981,67(3):305–11. 10.1097/00006534-198103000-00006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hester TR Jr, Bostwick J 3rd, Miller L, Cunningham SJ: Breast reduction utilizing the maximally vascularized central breast pedicle. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985,76(6):890–900.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Peixoto G: Reduction mammaplasty: a personal technique. Plast Reconstr Surg 1980,65(2):217–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hagerty RC, Nowicky DJ: Integration of the central mound technique with the vertical skin takeout reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998,102(4):1182–7. 10.1097/00006534-199809040-00042View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yousif NJ, Larson DL, Sanger JR, Matloub HS: Elimination of the vertical scar in reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992,89(3):459–67. 10.1097/00006534-199203000-00011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lalonde DH, Lalonde J, French R: The no vertical scar breast reduction: a minor variation that allows to remove vertical scar portion of the inferior pedicle wise pattern T scar. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003,27(5):335–44. 10.1007/s00266-003-3006-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Goes JC: Periareolar mammaplasty: double skin technique with application of polyglactine or mixed mesh. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996,97(5):959–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Copcu E: Treatment of severe gynaecomastia (grade III) by Moufarrege technique. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009,62(1):131–3. 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.04.033View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ahmad AA: A Modified central pedicle technique for breast reduction. Egypt J Plast Reconstr Surg 2005,29(1):47–54.Google Scholar
- Perez-Macias JM: Long-lasting evolution of ptosis control after reduction mammaplasty using the hammock technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2007,31(3):266–74. 10.1007/s00266-006-0188-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Da Silva G: Mastopexy with dermal ribbon for supporting tobreast and keeping it in shape. Plast Reconstr Surg 1964, 34: 403–405.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bustos RA: Periareolar mammaplasty technique with silicone supporting sheeting. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993,91(6):1173–4. 10.1097/00006534-199305000-00044View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lewis GK: A method of mastopexy with fascia lata transplants. J Int Coll Surg 1956,26(3):346–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Frey M: A new technique of reduction mammaplasty: dermis suspension and elimination of medial scars. Br J Plast Surg 1999,52(1):45–51. 10.1054/bjps.1998.3015View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Bruijn HP, Johannes S: Mastopexy with 3, D Preshaped Mesh for Long-Term Results: Development of the Internal Bra System. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008,32(5):757–65. 10.1007/s00266-008-9186-yView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tonnard PL, Verpaele A, Gaia S: Optimising results from minimal access cranial suspension lifting (MACS-lift). Aesthetic Plast Surg 2005,29(4):213–20. 10.1007/s00266-005-0047-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ritz M, Silfen R, Southwick G: Fascial suspension mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006,117(1):86–94. 10.1097/01.prs.0000194919.22522.63View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hawtof DB, Levine M, Kapetansky DI, Pieper D: Complications of reduction mammaplasty: comparison of nipple-areolar graft and pedicle. Ann Plast Surg 1989,23(1):3–10. 10.1097/00000637-198907000-00002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, van Zuijlen PP, Horst CM: Draining after breast reduction: a randomised controlled inter-patient study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009,62(7):865–8. 10.1016/j.bjps.2008.01.009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.