The articles included in this in-depth review cover the period from 2005 to 2015 and focus on breast hypertrophy, back pain, and spine. The 11 cohort studies included in this review had sample sizes ranging from n = 10 to n = 50. Table 1 summarizes the data with regards to type of study, cohort size, outcome measures, and results.
Reviewed Studies Characteristics
A total of 11 studies were included in this review from 2005 to present. The 2 studies by Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 and Krapohl1 examined women with breast hypertrophy in the nonsurgical setting. Nine studies evaluated a cohort of breast hypertrophy patients both preoperatively and postoperatively.17–25 The studies by Sahin et al.,19 Lapid et al.,20 Barbosa et al.,23 Tenna et al.,24 Foreman et al.,25 and Krapohl1 were nonradiological and more external measurement based. These 6 studies used 3D gait analysis, back inclination angle, center-of-pressure displacement, center-of-gravity oscillations, lower back compressive force, and functional spine score, respectively.1,19,20,23–25 Five of the studies were radiological in nature.17,18,21,22,26 The studies by Berberoglu et al.,17 Karabekmez et al.,18 Karaaslan et al.,21 and Findikcioglu et al.22 used regular x-rays to compare preoperative and postoperative spinal parameters while Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Some of the outcome measures of these radiological studies included CL angle, TK angle, LL angle, lumbosacral inclination, and sagittal balance disturbance.17,18,21,22 In addition to MRI, Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 made use of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score and the Beck Depression Inventory.
Spinal Angles: Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar
Only 5 previous studies compared reduction mammaplasty patients’ preoperative and postoperative spinal angles.17,18,20–22 Three studies found positive improvement. Berberoglu et al.17 found a statistically significant decrease in CL (9.9 ± 0.9, P < 0.001) and TK (17.0 ± 6.1, P < 0.001). Karabekmez et al.18 also demonstrated significantly improved CL (8.7 ± 3.7, P < 0.001), TK (13.9 ± 4.3, P < 0.001), and improved sagittal balance (P = 0.008). Improvement in TK (−2.7, P < 0.001), LL (−3.2, P < 0.001), and sacral inclination angle (−0.9, P = 0.005) was found by Findikcioglu et al.22
Two studies were not statistically significant. Those 2 studies are the following: Lapid et al.20 with no statistically significant improvement in back inclination angle (0.89 ± 3.48, t = 0.104) and Karaaslan et al.21 with no statistically significant improvement in TK and LL.
Gait, Center of Gravity, and Sagittal Balance
Karabekmez et al.18 demonstrated a postoperative return to normal sagittal balance in all 7 patients with disturbed sagittal balance preoperatively. Sahin et al.19 used 3D gait analysis on 10 patients to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in maximum anterior pelvic tilt (41% reduction), average maximum spine anterior flexion (30% improvement), and an improved body posture when walking after breast reduction surgery. In the study by Barbosa et al.,23 it was demonstrated that postoperative patients had a smaller center-of-displacement area and improved postural control. Tenna et al.24 demonstrated, by means of static stabilometry, that postoperative reduction mammaplasty patients have objectively improved posture at the 6-month postoperative mark (P = 0.032).
Spine MRI, Spine Score, Functional Spine Score, and Lower Back Compressive Force
Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 utilized MRI to investigate 50 breast hypertrophy patients for degenerative changes in the thoracic and cervical spine more specifically. The investigators evaluated “loss of signal characteristics, posterior and anterior disc protrusion, narrowing of the disc space, and foraminal stenosis” and deviations in the frontal and sagittal plane.26 Their results demonstrated that breast weight had a statistically significant positive effect (P = 0.02) on pathological findings such as spine score (0.71, P < 0.0001), pain (0.69, P < 0.0001), Beck Depression Inventory (0.58, P < 0.0001), and body mass index (BMI) (0.57, P < 0.0001). Age also had a statistically significant positive improvement correlation with pathological findings (P = 0.03).26 These articles confirm that breast hypertrophy overloads the spine leading to advanced degenerative disease. In another prospective study but with a small cohort of patients, Foreman et al.25 found that, postoperatively, their 11 reduction mammaplasty patients had a 35% decrease in low-back compressive forces. Such findings of change in center of gravity post breast reduction is in keeping with the off-loading of the musculature.
Pain and Relief
Lapid et al.20 reported that, preoperatively, 71.4% of their subjects had a higher VAS pain score. This statistic improved postoperatively with 19.0% patients reporting a higher VAS pain score. Barbosa et al.23 revealed an improvement in shoulder and neck pain, headache, hand numbness, and upper/lower back pain. The investigators attributed this symptom relief to an improvement in postural control.23 Participants in the study by Foreman et al.25 demonstrated a 76% postoperative reduction in self-reported disability, with the greatest improvements in the categories for frequency of pain and discomfort with travel. Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 found a significant correlation r between pain and breast weight (0.69, P < 0.0001), MRI score (0.46, P = 0.0012), spine score (0.75), Beck Depression Inventory (0.61, P < 0.0001), and BMI (0.58, P < 0.001).
BMI and Posture
In the study by Berberoglu et al.,17 there was no significant correlation found between postoperative vertebral angle and patient BMI. However, Karabekmez et al.18 established significant correlations between BMI and total excised breast tissue volume (P = 0.0001) and ΔCL angle postoperatively (P = 0.03). Lapid et al.20 found that back inclination was dependent on the BMI of the patient (−0.274, P = 0.001). In the study by Findikcioglu et al.,22 it was determined that BMI had a significant correlation with preoperative TK (r = 0.700, P < 0.001), LL (r = 0.740, P < 0.001), and sacral inclination angle (r = −0.005, P = 0.977). The study conducted by Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 demonstrated that BMI could prompt the development of spine disorders, postural anomalies, and depressive symptoms. In addition, they found a statistically significant correlation r between BMI and breast weight (0.57, P < 0.0001), spine score (0.51, P = 0.0001), and pain (0.37, P < 0.0001).26 In a study of n = 346 patients by Coltman et al.,27 it was also demonstrated that BMI had a significant main effect on breast volume. In fact, the median breast volume of obese subjects was nearly triple that of their counterparts with normal BMI.
We are presently studying back pain in breast hypertrophy patients with EOS at our University center, and this is why we have embarked on this in-depth scientific review of this topic.28 Even presently in 2018, quantitative tests to evaluate patients’ back pain before and after surgery are still less than optimal.29,30
On this topic in the literature, 107 scientific articles were found, but only 11 were valuable scientific articles with quantitative measures. Breast hypertrophy causes objective, quantitative, measurable disturbances in women living with this condition.29 It results in pain and fatigue that can negatively affect these women severely in their day-to-day life at home and especially at work. This makes their work productivity levels difficult to maintain. In a study by Cabral et al.,31 it was scientifically demonstrated that breast reduction results in a significant decrease in working hours lost, impairment at work, overall productivity loss, and daily activity impairment outside of work. Validated questionnaires were used to report those symptoms in a quantitative fashion. In general, back pain is on the rise as a major health burden especially with increasing rates of morbid obesity and rising BMI.32 In a study conducted in the Netherlands, the cost of back pain was found to be substantial enough to represent 1.7% of the country’s gross national product and the most expensive disease regarding work absenteeism and disability.5
The well-validated Breast-Q study standard questionnaire for evidence-based breast surgery revealed that over 95% of patients were pleased post breast reduction and 96% of those would “do it again.”33
On the other hand, pure quantitative self-esteem assessment was reported using the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) and clearly demonstrated breast hypertrophy’s negative effects on self-esteem.30
Another valuable quantitative tool is the classic VAS. Breast hypertrophy patients did score highly, with 10 being the worst pain on this scale. One study demonstrated a VAS score reduction from 69.5 preop to 13.3 postop.17 Breast hypertrophy causes immense pain for patients as mentioned above on the VAS scale. In all studies that applied a component of pain evaluation, a significant improvement in pain postoperatively was demonstrated.17,20,23,25,26
The mechanism by which this pain reduction is achieved is still not fully understood. It is likely a multifactor sequence of transformations in the spine, its ligamentous attachments, and possibly tension in the paraspinal musculature as well. In addition, this pain-alleviating mechanism in itself deserves further study.28
It has been presumed that a change in spinal angles may occur postoperatively after reduction mammaplasty, but only few studies have explored this clinical question. Five studies in this review compared preoperative and postoperative spinal angles. Statistically significant improvement was demonstrated in 3 of the 5 studies.17,18,22 On the other hand, the 2 other studies did not demonstrate any significant angle correction.20,21 Even in the few studies looking at the spinal angles in a quantitative manner, there is contradiction. In those 5 studies, CL and TK angles seem to correct to a higher and more consistent degree than does LL angle. Although the majority of included articles in this review described postoperative improvement in spinal angles, there remain discrepancies of results between them.
In addition, the radiological studies did reveal their respective weaknesses. The study by Berberoglu et al.17 used reference values for incline angles from the general population. It would have been more interesting to find these values for their study population and the variation between age and sex groups.17 Findikcioglu et al.22 stated their greatest limitation to be the fact that vertebral angles vary widely in the population and as such the reference range is equally wide. Finally, the study by Benditte-Klepetko et al.26 excluded obese women and women over 40 years of age. This may have caused their cohort to be unrepresentative of the typical population seeking breast reduction as they have a high BMI and they are over 40 years of age in most cases.
In summary, the 11 studies extracted and available in the literature fitting all the inclusion criteria from 107 studies are the only ones that have made attempts at quantifying back pain in breast hypertrophy. We have reviewed these articles to evaluate the different technologies (PT, x-ray, and MRI) presently available to quantify pain and discomfort of breast hypertrophy. The results are summarized and presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. -
Cohort Studies: Cohort, Outcome Measures, and Results
|Berberoglu et al.17
||CL, TK, LL, LSI (Lumbosacral Inclination), and back pain alleviation
||Improvement in all spinal angles, decreased back pain
|Karabekmez et al.18
||CL, TK, LL, and SBD
||Improvement in all spinal angles, SBD corrected
|Sahin et al.19
||3D gait analysis (APT and SAF angles)
||Improvement in APT, SAF, and in body posture when walking
|Lapid et al.20
||Back inclination angle
||No statistically significant improvement in back inclination angle
|Karaaslan et al.21
||TK and LL
||No statistically significant improvement in TK or LL
|Findikcioglu et al.22
||TK, LL, and LSI
||Improvement in all spinal angles
|Barbosa et al.23
||Significant improvement in postural control
|Tenna et al.24
||Improvement in posture
|Foreman et al.25
||Lower back compressive force
||35% reduction in lower back compressive force
|Benditte-Klepetko et al.26
||MRI, spine score, VAS pain score, and BDI
||Increasing breast weight correlated with degenerative spine disorders and depressive symptoms
||Functional spine score
||Spinal function significantly impaired with increasing breast weight
PT, anterior pelvic tilt; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; LSI, lumbosacral inclination; SAF, spine anterior flexion; SBD, sagittal balance disturbance.
Table 2. -
Highlighted Spinal Angle Findings
||Δ Back Inclination Angle
|Berberoglu et al.17
||−9.9 ± 0.9; P < 0.001
||−17.0 ± 6.1; P < 0.001
|Karabekmez et al.18
||−8.7 ± 3.7; P < 0.001
||−13.9 ± 4.3; P < 0.001
||Improvement, P = 0.008
|Lapid et al.20
||No significant improvement
|Karaaslan et al.21
||No significant improvement
||No significant improvement
|Findikcioglu et al.22
||−2.7; P < 0.001
||−3.2; P < 0.001
Despite their limitations, the 11 articles selected for this study provide an initial contribution. With this thorough review, the 5 best imaging-based scientific articles revealed conflicting results such as positive improvement versus no improvement for the same breast pathology. The literature is contradictory at best for a surgery with a 95% Breast-Q postoperative satisfaction and 96% of those patients who would “do it again” given the option.33
In conclusion, this systematic review confirms that there is room for further future studies with better quantitative tools and methodology.
1. Krapohl BD. Functional evaluation of the spine in patients with breast hypertrophy. Plast Surg Nurs. 2005;25:187–189.
2. Collins ED, Kerrigan CL, Kim M, et al. The effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical interventions in relieving the symptoms of macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:1556–1566.
3. Chiu TW, Stone C. Stone’s Plastic Surgery Facts and Figures. 2011.3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI. Back pain prevalence and visit rates: estimates from U.S. National Surveys, 2002. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31:2724–2727.
5. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. A cost-of-illness study of back pain in The Netherlands. Pain. 1995;62:233–240.
6. Ducic I, Iorio ML, Al-Attar A. Chronic headaches/migraines: extending indications for breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:44–49.
7. Freire M, Neto MS, Garcia EB, et al. Functional capacity and postural pain outcomes after reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:1149–1156; discussion 1157.
8. Mosser SW, Guyuron B, Janis JE, et al. The anatomy of the greater occipital nerve: implications for the etiology of migraine headaches. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:693–697; discussion 698.
9. Brown AP, Hill C, Khan K. Outcome of reduction mammaplasty–a patients’ perspective. Br J Plast Surg. 2000;53:584–587.
10. Chadbourne EB, Zhang S, Gordon MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in reduction mammaplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:503–510.
11. Redaelli A, Berjano P, Aebi M. Focal disorders of the spine with compensatory deformities: how to define them. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(suppl 1):59–69.
12. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302.
13. Pusic AL, Klassen A, Cano SJ, et al. Validation of the breast evaluation questionnaire. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:352–353.
14. Pusic AL, McCarthy C, Cano SJ, et al. Clinical research in breast surgery: reduction and postmastectomy reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;35:215–226.
15. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF, et al. Understanding the health burden of macromastia: normative data for the BREAST-Q Reduction Module. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:846e–853e.
16. Cerrato F, Webb ML, Rosen H, et al. The impact of macromastia on adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e339–e346.
17. Berberoğlu Ö, Temel M, Türkmen A. Effects of reduction mammaplasty operations on the spinal column: clinical and radiological response. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015;39:514–522.
18. Karabekmez FE, Gokkaya A, Isik C, et al. Does reduction mammaplasty revert skeletal disturbances in the vertebral column of patients with macromastia? A preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38:104–112.
19. Sahin I, Iskender S, Ozturk S, et al. Evaluation of breast reduction surgery effect on body posture and gait pattern using three-dimensional gait analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37:549–553.
20. Lapid O, de Groof EJ, Corion LU, et al. The effect of breast hypertrophy on patient posture. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40:559–563.
21. Karaaslan O, Demirkiran HG, Silistreli O, et al. The effect of reduction mammaplasty on the vertebral column: a radiologic study. Sci World J. 2013;2013:701391.
22. Findikcioglu K, Findikcioglu F, Bulam H, et al. The impact of breast reduction surgery on the vertebral column. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:639–642.
23. Barbosa AF, Lavoura PH, Boffino CC, et al. The impact of surgical breast reduction on the postural control of women with breast hypertrophy. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2013;37:321–326.
24. Tenna S, Brunetti B, Trivelli M, et al. Postural variations after breast reduction: introduction of a new technique to achieve an objective analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:261–264.
25. Foreman KB, Dibble LE, Droge J, et al. The impact of breast reduction surgery on low-back compressive forces and function in individuals with macromastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1393–1399.
26. Benditte-Klepetko H, Leisser V, Paternostro-Sluga T, et al. Hypertrophy of the breast: a problem of beauty or health? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:1062–1069.
27. Coltman CE, Steele JR, McGhee DE. Breast volume is affected by body mass index but not age. Ergonomics. 2017;60:1576–1585.
28. Papanastasiou C, Fortin M, Ouellet J, et al. PSRC podium presentation & abstract QS 36: quantitative orthopaedic spine benefits post breast reduction - preliminary results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;6(4S):138.
29. Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Kim HM, et al. Reduction mammaplasty: defining medical necessity. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:208–217.
30. Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Striplin D, et al. The health burden of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1591–1599.
31. Cabral IV, Garcia ED, Sobrinho RN, et al. Increased capacity for work and productivity after breast reduction. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:57–62.
32. Statcan. Statistics Canada - overweight and obese adults (self-reported). 2014.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
33. Gonzalez MA, Glickman LT, Aladegbami B, et al. Quality of life after breast reduction surgery: a 10-year retrospective analysis using the breast Q questionnaire: does breast size matter? Ann Plast Surg. 2012;69:361–363.