Use of the superior breast border landmark for planning reduction mammoplasty: Objectively analysis with long-term follow-up period


Turkish Journal of Plastic Surgery, vol.30, no.1, pp.5-10, 2021 (ESCI) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 30 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2021
  • Doi Number: 10.4103/tjps.tjps_31_21
  • Journal Name: Turkish Journal of Plastic Surgery
  • Journal Indexes: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Page Numbers: pp.5-10
  • Keywords: Ideal, marking, nipple, position, reduction mammoplasty, NIPPLE-AREOLA COMPLEX, INFERIOR POLE LENGTH, POSITION, PEDICLE
  • Kocaeli University Affiliated: Yes


Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the upper breast border (UBB) in determining the new location of the nipple and to objectively analyze long-term nipple position compared to pre-operative markings. Patients and Methods: Thirty-eight patients (76 breasts) patients who underwent superomedial pedicle, reverse-T scar breast reductions and who had long-term (>12 months) follow-up data were included. The sternal notch to the nipple, nipple to inframammarian fold (N-IMF), nipple to chest midline, and areola diameter were measured and recorded at the time of preoperative, markings, and long-term follow-up visit. Statistical Analysis Used: The differences in measurements were compared using a paired, two-tailed T-test, and a P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The average follow-up time was 17.9 months (range 12-41 months). The nipple was located, on average, 0.95 cm lower on postoperative assessment compared to preoperative marking (P = 0.060). The nipple was located, on average, 0.75 cm lateral on postoperative assessment compared to preoperative marking (P < 0.001). The average postoperative increase in the N-IMF distance between marking and the long-term follow-up visit was 1.75 cm (P < 0.001). The areola diameter was increased 0.21 cm on postoperative assessment compared to preoperative marking (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The nipple position moved down and the N-IMF distance was greater than planned. However, the nipple was usually located at the area of the greatest projection of the breast due to almost equal elongation of the superior and inferior poles. The outcome of breast reduction procedures in which the postoperative nipple position is planned using the UBB was good.