Large-volume breast reduction: Long-term results

Sagit Meshulam-Derazon*, Yoav Barnea, Arik Zaretski, David Leshem, Udi Miller, Beni Meilik, Jerry Weiss, Rafael Shafir, Aharon Amir, Eyal Gur

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Forty-three women had reduction mammaplasty during the period 1992-2000 and the cosmetic outcome was evaluated using subjective and objective measures. The inferior pedicle technique was used in all cases. The mean (SD) weight of resected tissue was 1121 (415) g. All objective measurements were within the ideal range except for breast volume and nipple-to-inframammary-line distance, which were more than ideal. Overall, the median difference in measurements between the two breasts of each woman was less than 10%. However, the subjective evaluations given by both clinicians and the patients for overall symmetry and for general aesthetic appearance fell below the preset threshold. The shape of the breast correlated best with the grades of symmetry and general appearance. There was no correlation between the objective and subjective evaluations of symmetry. The disappointing subjective scores, which may be attributed to the specific characteristics of our sample group, are heavy breasts and overweight patients, a double team approach, and the inevitable pseudoptosis that develops with the inferior pedicle approach. These direct us to recommend searching for an alternative operative technique and to evaluate its long term results, as well as placing the nipple-areola complex lower than the standard inframammary fold projection.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)65-70
Number of pages6
JournalScandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes


  • Breast reduction
  • Long-term follow-up
  • Objective evaluation
  • Subjective evaluation


Dive into the research topics of 'Large-volume breast reduction: Long-term results'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this