title: Vertical reduction mammaplasty utilizing the superomedial pedicle: is it really for everyone?
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Classically, the vertical-style reduction mammaplasty utilizing a superomedial pedicle has been limited to smaller reductions secondary to concerns for poor wound healing and nipple necrosis.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The authors reviewed a large cohort of patients who underwent a vertical-style superomedial pedicle reduction mammaplasty in an attempt to demonstrate its safety and efficacy in treating symptomatic macromastia.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective review was performed of 290 patients (558 breasts) who underwent a vertical-style superomedial pedicle reduction mammaplasty. All procedures were conducted by one of 4 plastic surgeons over 6 years (JDR, MAA, DLV, DRA).
  
  
  RESULTS
  The average resection weight was 551.7 g (range, 176-1827 g), with 4.6% of resections greater than 1000 g. A majority of patients (55.2%) concomitantly underwent liposuction of the breast. The total complication rate was 22.7%, with superficial dehiscence (8.8%) and hypertrophic scarring (8.8%) comprising the majority. Nipple sensory changes occurred in 1.6% of breasts, with no episodes of nipple necrosis. The revision rate was 2.2%. Patients with complications had significantly higher resection volumes and nipple-to-fold distances (P = .014 and .010, respectively).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The vertical-style superomedial pedicle reduction mammaplasty is safe and effective for a wide range of symptomatic macromastia. The nipple-areola complex can be safely transposed, even in patients with larger degrees of macromastia, with no episodes of nipple necrosis. The adjunctive use of liposuction should be considered safe. Last, revision rates were low, correlating with a high level of patient satisfaction.
authors.affiliation: Michigan State University's College of Human Medicine, Grand Rapids, USA.
authors.forename: Keith C
authors.initials: KC
authors.lastname: Neaman
authors.forename: Shannon D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: Armstrong
authors.forename: Shawn J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Mendonca
authors.forename: Marguerite A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Aitken
authors.forename: Douglas L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: VanderWoude
authors.forename: John D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Renucci
authors.forename: David R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Alfonso
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001940:Breast / Q000002:abnormalities / Q000601:surgery; D017439:Cicatrix, Hypertrophic / Q000209:etiology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006984:Hypertrophy / Q000601:surgery*; D015187:Lipectomy; D016015:Logistic Models; D016462:Mammaplasty / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D008824:Michigan; D008875:Middle Aged; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D009558:Nipples / Q000294:innervation / Q000601:surgery*; D016017:Odds Ratio; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D018579:Patient Selection; D012086:Reoperation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D012678:Sensation Disorders / Q000209:etiology; D013529:Surgical Wound Dehiscence / Q000209:etiology; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult