Reply: A Comparison of Superomedial versus Inferior Pedicle Reduction Mammaplasty Using Three-Dimensional Analysis

Zhu, Victor M.D.; Kwei, Stephanie M.D.

Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: April 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 4 - p 1018e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003194
Letters

Department of Surgery, Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

Correspondence to Dr. Kwei, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208041, New Haven, Conn. 06520, kweistephanie@gmail.com

Article Outline
Back to Top | Article Outline

Sir:

We would like to thank the authors for their comments regarding our study,1 which compared superomedial versus inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty using three-dimensional analysis. We agree that randomization with similar preoperative volume and resection weight between the cohorts would provide useful analysis of these techniques. In our data collection, we could not obtain accurate volumetric measurements of the preoperative breasts because the pendulous posterior breast surface frequently merged with the abdominal wall in the imaging software. Furthermore, it was difficult to identify the inframammary fold with an overlying large ptotic breast. Therefore, we decided to compare breasts with similar postoperative volumes and more accurate landmarks, to track mammometric changes over time between the two cohorts.

To verify our study outcomes, we performed a separate analysis where the cohorts were matched based on the volume of tissue resected (superomedial pedicle, 495 cc; inferior pedicle, 555 cc; p = 0.08). This analysis contained nine patients in each cohort, and revealed similar results, including increased sternal notch–to-nipple distance (superomedial pedicle, 21.4 cm; inferior pedicle, 23.3 cm; p = 0.01) and increased medial pole fullness (superomedial pedicle, 36.3 percent; inferior pedicle, 47.0 percent; p < 0.01) in the inferior pedicle cohort at the late postoperative period. In addition, no difference was found in superior pole volume at the late postoperative period (superomedial pedicle, 59.6 percent; inferior pedicle, 58.6 percent; p = 0.61). As such, it appears the main study outcomes are similar regardless of whether the cohorts are matched based on postoperative breast size or weight of tissue resected.

We are aware of the many contributions of other authors who have compared these techniques using traditional mammometrics and two-dimensional photography; however, we could not discuss these articles in the Letter format. We hope our observations may offer some insights when considering various pedicle techniques for reduction mammaplasty.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial disclosures.

Victor Zhu, M.D.

Stephanie Kwei, M.D.

Department of Surgery

Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Yale University School of Medicine

New Haven, Conn.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCE

1. Zhu VZ, Shah A, Lentz R, Sturrock T, Au AF, Kwei SLA comparison of superomedial versus inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty using three-dimensional analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:781e–783e.
Back to Top | Article Outline

GUIDELINES

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.

©2017American Society of Plastic Surgeons