Department of Plastic Surgery, Georgetown University Hospital, First Floor PHC Building, 3800 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, D.C. 20007, email@example.com
It was my pleasure to read the letter from Dr. Bovill, Dr. Macadan, and Dr. Lennox, which was a commentary on our recent article on a technique for correcting the postoperative high-riding nipple and review and classification of high-riding nipples. The authors commented that they agreed there is a certain risk of nipple elevation and migration beyond the desired level after nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction with tissue expanders or implants. They propose one or more techniques to help reduce this risk or prevent it. I am familiar with those techniques, which include suturing the deep surface of overlying nipple itself or some portion of the mastectomy skin flaps to the underlying pectoralis muscle, or matrix material, if it is used. Those techniques are helpful, and should help reduce the frequency and likelihood of undesirable nipple migration. Nevertheless, the value of the article and Dr. Lennox’s Letter to the Editor is to remind surgeons that nipple-sparing mastectomy has many advantages, but one of the risks associated with it is an undesirable malpositioning of the nipple, which is often superior and lateral to the ideal.
Again, my appreciation and thanks to Dr. Bovill, Dr. Macadan, and Dr. Lennox for reading and responding to our article. I am quite confident that, in their hands, excessive superior migration of the nipple is less common than it is in the hands of others, and I think their letter helps advise both the risk of that problem and some techniques to help reduce its likelihood.
The author has no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.
Scott L. Spear, M.D.
Department of Plastic Surgery
Georgetown University Hospital
First Floor PHC Building
3800 Reservoir Road, NW
Washington, D.C. 20007
Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.
Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.
Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.
We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.
The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.
The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.