乳房成形术的测量综述:评估自体增强、网状、脱细胞真皮基质和Wise模式。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Annals of Plastic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-30 DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000004455
Eric Swanson
{"title":"乳房成形术的测量综述:评估自体增强、网状、脱细胞真皮基质和Wise模式。","authors":"Eric Swanson","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A recent review article summarizes the discussion of mastopexy into 2 \"emerging\" approaches-mastopexy with autoaugmentation and mastopexy with mesh support. These concepts were introduced decades ago. This quantitative review was undertaken to explore the evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic literature review was conducted to identify publications that evaluated mammaplasties using a 2-dimensional measurement method that is (uniquely) capable of comparing important breast parameters, specifically breast projection and upper-pole projection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Measurement data from 20 publications were tabulated. Women treated with vertical mammaplasties showed mean increases in both breast projection (+0.69 cm) and upper-pole projection (+0.64 cm). Patients treated with nonvertical methods lost 0.77 cm of breast projection, on average. Gain in upper-pole projection was marginal (+0.13 cm). Both increments were significantly greater for vertical methods ( P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001). Implants boosted breast projection and upper-pole projection. There was essentially no benefit in breast projection or upper-pole projection in patients who received mesh.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite an intuitive appeal, autoaugmentation methods do not perform. No parenchymal rearrangement can increase volume. An implant is needed to provide substantial upper-pole fullness. Vertical mammaplasties consistently outperform Wise pattern methods because of a more favorable geometry, trading width for projection rather than the reverse. Despite claims of \"support,\" there is no evidence for improved breast shape or durability using mesh or acellular dermal matrix. An \"internal bra\" is a marketing concept with no reliable supportive evidence. Financial conflicts are a major consideration.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A recommitment to science and measurements is needed to guide treatment recommendations. Women should not be advised that autoaugmentation can mimic the effect of an implant; nor should they be offered mesh or ADM. The vertical mammaplasty should replace the Wise pattern as the preferred mammaplasty design. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy is a powerful combination.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"438-452"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435245/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.\",\"authors\":\"Eric Swanson\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004455\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A recent review article summarizes the discussion of mastopexy into 2 \\\"emerging\\\" approaches-mastopexy with autoaugmentation and mastopexy with mesh support. These concepts were introduced decades ago. This quantitative review was undertaken to explore the evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic literature review was conducted to identify publications that evaluated mammaplasties using a 2-dimensional measurement method that is (uniquely) capable of comparing important breast parameters, specifically breast projection and upper-pole projection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Measurement data from 20 publications were tabulated. Women treated with vertical mammaplasties showed mean increases in both breast projection (+0.69 cm) and upper-pole projection (+0.64 cm). Patients treated with nonvertical methods lost 0.77 cm of breast projection, on average. Gain in upper-pole projection was marginal (+0.13 cm). Both increments were significantly greater for vertical methods ( P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001). Implants boosted breast projection and upper-pole projection. There was essentially no benefit in breast projection or upper-pole projection in patients who received mesh.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Despite an intuitive appeal, autoaugmentation methods do not perform. No parenchymal rearrangement can increase volume. An implant is needed to provide substantial upper-pole fullness. Vertical mammaplasties consistently outperform Wise pattern methods because of a more favorable geometry, trading width for projection rather than the reverse. Despite claims of \\\"support,\\\" there is no evidence for improved breast shape or durability using mesh or acellular dermal matrix. An \\\"internal bra\\\" is a marketing concept with no reliable supportive evidence. Financial conflicts are a major consideration.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A recommitment to science and measurements is needed to guide treatment recommendations. Women should not be advised that autoaugmentation can mimic the effect of an implant; nor should they be offered mesh or ADM. The vertical mammaplasty should replace the Wise pattern as the preferred mammaplasty design. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy is a powerful combination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"438-452\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12435245/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004455\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004455","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近的一篇综述文章将乳房切除术的讨论总结为两种“新兴”的方法——自体隆乳乳房切除术和网状支撑乳房切除术。这些概念是几十年前引入的。进行这一定量审查是为了探索证据。方法:进行电子文献综述,以确定使用二维测量方法评估乳房整形的出版物,该方法(独特)能够比较重要的乳房参数,特别是乳房投影和上极投影。结果:将20篇出版物的测量数据制成表格。接受垂直乳房成形术的女性,乳房投影平均增加(+0.69 cm),上极投影平均增加(+0.64 cm)。采用非垂直方法治疗的患者平均减少了0.77厘米的乳房投影。上极投影的增加是边际的(+0.13 cm)。垂直方法的两种增量均显著大于(P < 0.0001和P < 0.001)。植入物提高了乳房和上极突起。在接受补片的患者中,乳房投影或上极投影基本上没有益处。讨论:尽管具有直观的吸引力,但自动增强方法无法执行。没有实质重排可以增加体积。需要植入物来提供相当的上极充盈。垂直乳房成形术一直优于Wise模式方法,因为它具有更有利的几何形状,用宽度换取投影,而不是相反。尽管声称“支持”,没有证据表明网状或脱细胞真皮基质可以改善乳房形状或耐用性。“内部胸罩”是一个没有可靠证据支持的营销概念。经济冲突是一个主要的考虑因素。结论:需要重新致力于科学和测量来指导治疗建议。女性不应该被告知自体隆胸可以模仿植入物的效果;也不应该提供网状或adm。垂直乳房成形术应该取代Wise模式成为首选的乳房成形术设计。垂直隆胸/乳房固定术是一个强大的组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.

A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.

A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.

A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.

Background: A recent review article summarizes the discussion of mastopexy into 2 "emerging" approaches-mastopexy with autoaugmentation and mastopexy with mesh support. These concepts were introduced decades ago. This quantitative review was undertaken to explore the evidence.

Methods: An electronic literature review was conducted to identify publications that evaluated mammaplasties using a 2-dimensional measurement method that is (uniquely) capable of comparing important breast parameters, specifically breast projection and upper-pole projection.

Results: Measurement data from 20 publications were tabulated. Women treated with vertical mammaplasties showed mean increases in both breast projection (+0.69 cm) and upper-pole projection (+0.64 cm). Patients treated with nonvertical methods lost 0.77 cm of breast projection, on average. Gain in upper-pole projection was marginal (+0.13 cm). Both increments were significantly greater for vertical methods ( P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001). Implants boosted breast projection and upper-pole projection. There was essentially no benefit in breast projection or upper-pole projection in patients who received mesh.

Discussion: Despite an intuitive appeal, autoaugmentation methods do not perform. No parenchymal rearrangement can increase volume. An implant is needed to provide substantial upper-pole fullness. Vertical mammaplasties consistently outperform Wise pattern methods because of a more favorable geometry, trading width for projection rather than the reverse. Despite claims of "support," there is no evidence for improved breast shape or durability using mesh or acellular dermal matrix. An "internal bra" is a marketing concept with no reliable supportive evidence. Financial conflicts are a major consideration.

Conclusions: A recommitment to science and measurements is needed to guide treatment recommendations. Women should not be advised that autoaugmentation can mimic the effect of an implant; nor should they be offered mesh or ADM. The vertical mammaplasty should replace the Wise pattern as the preferred mammaplasty design. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy is a powerful combination.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信