CME

Mastopexy
David A. Hidalgo, M.D.
Jason A. Spector, M.D.
New York, N.Y.

Learning Objectives: After reading this article, the participant should be able
to: 1. Assess patient physical characteristics to determine candidacy for mastopexy and select the most appropriate technique. 2. Understand current
methods, their relative effectiveness, and key technical elements. 3. Become
conversant with methods to fixate, redistribute, and autoaugment the parenchyma. 4. Understand the benefits and pitfalls of combining augmentation
and mastopexy, and how to best design and execute these procedures. 5.
Become cognizant of mastopexy complications and how to both avoid and
treat them.
Summary: Mastopexy includes multiple skin incision design and parenchymal
manipulation options. Patient evaluation includes assessment of goals, degree
of ptosis, tissue volume, skin quality, and breast position on the chest wall.
There are critical technical details for each of the three incision options, the
various methods of parenchymal manipulation, and implant placement. The
potential for complications is greatest for combined augmentation and mastopexy. Although they are effective, mastopexy procedures have the greatest
incidence of litigation among aesthetic breast procedures. (Plast. Reconstr.
Surg. 132: 642e, 2013.)

astopexy is by nature problematic because

it trades significant scars for limited lift
capability on arguably the most aesthetically sensitive female body part. The incidence of
untoward results, revisions, and litigation is high
despite mastopexy being ranked well behind augmentation and reduction in the number of procedures performed annually.1,2 Nevertheless, it is
effective when the right technique is matched to
favorable indications.
There are three basic incision types, with
several variants. There are multiple options for
parenchymal fixation, redistribution, and autoaugmentation. Combining breast augmentation with
mastopexy increases the risk for complications but
may be necessary to achieve the best result (reference 5: Therapeutic, Level III Evidence).35
Mastopexy spans a spectrum of procedures
from mastopexy with modest reduction; to mastopexy alone when tissue volume is adequate; to
augmentation combined with mastopexy when
there is a tissue deficiency, marked skin excess, or
both. The scope of surgery, the recovery, and the
potential for complications are least for skin-only
From the Division of Plastic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical
College.
Received for publication January 24, 2013; accepted March
27, 2013.
Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31829fe4b4

642e

procedures, minimal for mastopexy with modest

reduction, and greatest with combined augmentation and mastopexy.

ESSENTIALS OF PREOPERATIVE
ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT
Patient Evaluation
Relevant patient history includes age; goals;
pregnancies and breast feeding history; medications including psychotropic agents, birth control, and hormone replacement therapy; history
of weight fluctuations, bleeding, or clotting problems; and previous surgery.6 Physical evaluation
includes height and weight measurement, assessment of breast position on the chest wall, nipple
distance from the clavicle, areolar diameter, tissue
volume, skin quality and amount, and asymmetry.
Disclosure: Neither author has a financial interest
in any of the products or devices mentioned in this
article.

Related Video content is available for this article. The videos can be found under the Related Videos section of the full-text article, or,
for Ovid users, using the URL citations published in the article.

www.PRSJournal.com

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

Table 1. Ptosis Classification*
Type
Grade I
Grade II
Grade III
Glandular ptosis

Degree

Description

Mild
Moderate
Severe

Nipple position at the level of the inframammary fold

Nipple position below the inframammary fold but above the lower breast contour
Nipple position below the inframammary fold at the lower contour of the breast
Nipple position above the fold but the breast is below the fold

*According to Regnault P. Breast ptosis: Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 1976;3:193203.

Nipple position relative to the inframammary

crease determines the degree of ptosis (Table1).7
Patients primarily exhibiting low breast position but without significant ptosis do not benefit
from mastopexy. Those with normal position and
only minimal ptosis do not benefit enough to justify the scar burden entailed.
Patient Education
Patients often expect that mastopexy will provide upper pole fullness, raise the breast completely above the inframammary crease level,
and leave either minimal or no scars. They do
not realize that the breasts are not lifted from
above, as they frequently simulate, but instead are
pushed up from below, an inherently less powerful approach necessary for scar concealment.
Descriptions of mastopexy scar patterns, particularly when a vertical component is necessary, often
produce dismay. Photographs of representative
results typically allay fears in those who are realistic, however.

Patients primarily seeking breast augmentation but have low nipple position, enlarged
areolar diameters, or nipple position asymmetry may require mastopexy only as a limited
adjunct. Although conservative circumareolar
mastopexy usually suffices in these cases, a
vertical component may be required on one
side if significant nipple position asymmetry
exists (Fig.1).
Volume-deficient mastopexy candidates often
require breast implants. The additional risks must
be explained and include implant malposition,
capsular contracture, and the need for periodic
replacement. Combining augmentation with mastopexy has a much higher incidence of complications than either procedure alone.3,8
Augmentation and mastopexy can be performed as staged procedures, but this approach is
less efficient from both cost and recovery perspectives. Proper preoperative analysis and sufficient
discussion with the patient can avoid ultimately
needing two procedures.4,5

Fig. 1. Breast augmentation with right circumareolar mastopexy and left vertical mastopexy. (Left) Preoperative view showing postpartum atrophy, nipple position asymmetry,
and volume asymmetry. (Right) Postoperative view with 225-g round silicone implant
on the right and 250-g implant on the left.

643e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF
TREATMENT OPTIONS
Crescent Mastopexy
Crescent mastopexy was originally described
as an eccentric circumareolar skin excision without areolar mobilization and no purse-string
suture.9 Problems with scar widening and oval
areolar deformity were reported. A more recent
description advocates excising a wedge of breast
tissue down to the pectoralis muscle to prevent
these problems.10 Crescent mastopexy is not
widely used today.
Circumareolar Mastopexy
Circumareolar mastopexy was originally
described as a donut mastopexy because of the
shape of the skin excision design.11 The best indication was for protuberant areolas. Since then,
variants with eccentric skin excision design and
wide undermining have been described, with
some including inferior suture invagination of
the parenchyma.12,13 Circumareolar mastopexy by
itself does not elevate nipple position enough or
remove sufficient skin to be very effective.
Circumareolar mastopexy is best used as an
adjunct in breast augmentation. It can reduce
areolar diameter and simultaneously raise nipple
position modestly (<2cm) by using an eccentric
shaped excision pattern that includes intra-areolar skin (Table2). It can also increase infra-areolar skin show in ptotic breasts and can correct
nipple position asymmetry when used unilaterally (Fig.2).
Although outside incision diameters up to
12cm have been advocated, those not exceeding
7cm will reliably avoid problems with pleating,
central flattening, wide scars, areolar spreading,
and the loss of skin texture inherent in this technique. An alternative recommendation is that
the ratio of outside diameter to areolar diameter
should not exceed 2:1.14,15

A purse-string suture of permanent material

reduces scar tension in circumareolar mastopexy. Placement only along the outside circumference is less effective than the wagon-wheel
method that also incorporates the areola. The
latter better distributes and reduces wound
tension.16
The Benelli procedure is a true circumareolar
mastopexy without augmentation. Extensive skin
undermining exposes the parenchyma, which is
then split to create flaps that are overlapped to
provide coning and lift.17 This method is not recommended because the large central skin excision advocated causes the aesthetic problems
described previously.
Vertical Mastopexy
Vertical mastopexy removes more skin than
circumareolar techniques. It effectively raises
nipple position and reduces circumareolar skin
tension (Fig.3). Both the splay angle between
the vertical limbs and limb length will increase
with increasing amounts of lower pole skin. The
greater these measurements, the higher the
nipple position is elevated based on geometry
(Fig.4). Vertical mastopexy without simultaneous reduction does not significantly narrow the
breast base.
Vertical mastopexy can be used for grade
I to III ptosis, but the scar burden may not be
justified in mild cases. Adequate mobilization
for nipple transposition can prove challenging
when applied to patients with severe grade III
ptosis.
Y-Scar Vertical Mastopexy
Y-scar vertical mastopexy deletes the superior portion of the circumareolar incision but
is otherwise similar to vertical mastopexy.18 The
requirements for its use are nearly normal areolar diameter and nipple position (Table2).

Table 2. Mastopexy Options and Indications

With augmentation
Circumareolar

With or without augmentation

Circumvertical
Y-scar
Vertical mastopexy
Inverted-T

644e

Areolar diameter asymmetry (unilateral procedure)

Nipple position asymmetry (unilateral procedure)
Enlarged areolar diameter (>5cm)
Grade I ptosis and no visible infra-areolar skin
Grade III ptosis, large areolar diameter, short areola-crease distance
Glandular ptosis (normal nipple position), normal areolar diameter, excess lower pole
skin
Grade IIII ptosis
Previous circumareolar mastopexy with persistent large areolar diameter, with or without pleats, and wide scars (areolar circumference reduction)
Grade IIIII ptosis with severe atrophy and skin excess (massive weight loss)

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

Fig. 2. Breast augmentation with circumareolar mastopexy. (Left) Preoperative view

showing severe postpartum atrophy and grade II ptosis. (Right) Postoperative view;
300-g round silicone implants were placed in a subpectoral plane.

Sufficient nipple elevation accompanies vertical incision design geometry without the need
for a superior periareolar incision component.
The scar burden is perceptibly less with this technique (Fig.5).
Circumvertical Mastopexy
Patients with significant ptosis, large areolas,
and little skin between the areola and inframammary crease are poor candidates for standard
vertical mastopexy. The paucity of lower pole
skin dictates short vertical limbs that diverge at
a narrow angle. This minimizes the amount of
nipple elevation possible. In addition, the vertical
limbs may not diverge wide enough to skirt outside the areolar margin. Continuing the vertical
limbs within the areolar skin results in patches of
retained areolar skin along the vertical incision,
something poorly tolerated by patients even when
forewarned.
Patients with this anatomy are candidates for a
circumvertical mastopexy that combines elements
of vertical and circumareolar mastopexy. The vertical limbs extend to the areolar margin to join a
circumareolar excision pattern designed to either
raise the nipple position, reduce the areolar diameter by intra-areolar skin excision, or both. The
amount of nipple elevation with this method is
limited but better than that of circumareolar mastopexy alone.

Inverted-T Mastopexy
Inverted-T methods remove the most skin
in exchange for the greatest scar burden among
available techniques. Inverted-T mastopexy provides wide exposure that facilitates both nipple
elevation and parenchymal redistribution, fixation, and autoaugmentation techniques. It is the
most effective option for grade II to III ptosis associated with the severe skin excess typically seen in
massive weight loss patients (Table2).
There are other inverted-T designs besides
the classic Wise pattern, but most are of historical interest only.19,20 There are also designs that
fall between inverted-T and vertical designs, but
these L-shaped techniques are not widely used
either.21,22
Parenchymal Fixation, Redistribution, and
Autoaugmentation Techniques
Skin-only mastopexy has advantages of simplicity, quick healing, and low morbidity. However,
the adequacy of upper pole fill and long-term stability with this method have been questioned.23
Adjunctive techniques developed to address these
concerns include parenchymal suture fixation,
parenchymal redistribution methods, insertion
of prosthetic mesh, and autoaugmentation. However, there are no controlled studies that validate
the efficacy of any of these methods beyond skinonly mastopexy.24

645e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

Fig. 3. Vertical mastopexy. (Above, left) Preoperative view showing low breast position and grade I ptosis. (Above, right) Postoperative view. Small amounts of tissue were
resected from each side (left, 52g; right, 94g) but there was otherwise no parenchymal
manipulation. (Below, left) Preoperative view showing grade II ptosis. (Below, right) Postoperative view following skin resection only. There was no parenchymal manipulation.

Simple parenchymal suture fixation to the

pectoralis muscle has been described for both
inverted-T and vertical techniques.20,2527 InvertedT methods deglove the gland to accomplish this.
Vertical methods leave the gland attached to the
skin, lift it off the muscle, fix it higher on the muscle, and plicate folds that form below to add further support.28

646e

A parenchymal redistribution method used

with vertical mastopexy creates a superiorly based
flap that is rotated deep and sutured high on
the pectoralis fascia. Medial and lateral pillars
are closed below it to narrow and further raise
the breast (Fig.6). This method displaces volume superiorly and creates a central hammock
below for support.25,29 A different method creates

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

Fig. 4. (Left) The vertical limbs vary both in length and their angle of
divergence depending on the amount of excess skin present. (Right)
The nipple position is elevated based on simple geometry as the
angle between the vertical limbs is closed.

a lateral pedicle that is rotated superiorly to

enhance upper pole fullness.30
A parenchymal redistribution method used
with inverted-T mastopexy divides the parenchyma transversely down to the chest wall. This
forms inferior and superior flaps, with the latter
carrying the nipple-areola complex. The superior flap is partially raised to create a pocket
over the pectoralis muscle. The inferior flap is
sutured into this pocket to augment upper pole
volume and eliminate lower pole laxity. The
superior flap is then sutured over the inferior
flap (Fig.7).31

A more aggressive inverted-T method creates an inferiorly based central flap that is passed
under a loop of pectoralis major muscle, folded
over it, and sutured to the muscle fascia. Medial
and lateral columns of tissue are then closed over
it.32,33 There are oncologic concerns regarding
violation of the deep plane barrier to the breast
with this technique. A similar procedure secures
the parenchymal flap under a band of pectoralis
fascia instead of the muscle.26
A combined parenchymal redistribution and
suture fixation method uses a vertical incision
design to expose an inferior pedicle (short-scar

Fig. 5. Y-scar mastopexy. (Left) Preoperative view shows glandular ptosis and long lower
pole with both normal nipple position and areolar diameter. (Right) Postoperative view
following Y-scar pattern skin resection. No parenchymal manipulation was performed.
The central chest nevi provide stable reference points for evaluating the degree of nipple position and lower pole elevation achieved.

647e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

Fig. 6. Vertical mastopexy with parenchymal flaps. (Left) A superiorly based parenchymal flap is raised over the pectoralis fascia.
(Center) The flap is rotated underneath and sutured high on the fascia to increase upper pole volume. (Right) The medial and lateral
pillars below are sutured together to narrow the breast and add support.

periareolarinferior pedicle reduction technique

[SPAIR technique]).16 The deep surface of the flap
raised over the pedicle superiorly is sutured high

on the pectoralis fascia to increase upper pole

volume. The inferior pedicle is then advanced
upward and also sutured to the fascia. Use of any

Fig. 7. Inverted-T mastopexy with parenchymal flaps. (Above, left) After skin excision, the gland is marked for division into superior and inferior flaps. (Above, right)
The superior flap is undermined over the fascia and the inferior flap is advanced
upward into the space created. (Below, left) The inferior flap is sutured high on the
pectoralis fascia to create upper pole fullness. (Below, right) The superior flap is
then sutured over the inferior flap.

648e

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

Fig. 8. Circumareolar mastopexy with mesh support. (Above, left) After a circumareolar skin excision, the gland is degloved. (Above, right) Superior and inferior
wedge excisions of the gland are performed. (Below, left) The excision defects
are closed to cone the gland and improve projection. (Below, right) The gland is
wrapped in a synthetic mesh to reinforce the shape and add support.

of these more complex parenchymal redistribution techniques subjects the patient to other complications such as fat necrosis.
An alternative approach using mesh support
begins with degloving the breast following a circumareolar skin excision. Superior and inferior
parenchymal wedge excisions are performed that
cone the gland after closure of the defects. Either
a mixed polyester/polyglactin (not available in
the United States) or Vicryl or Vicryl/Prolene
(both from Ethicon, Inc., Somerville, N.J.) mesh
is then placed over the gland and sutured to the
chest wall (Fig.8). No interference with monitoring for breast cancer is claimed and the mesh is
not radiologically evident after 1 year.34 The mesh
is well tolerated with minimal soft-tissue reaction
to it, does not alter tissue consistency, and is easy
to remove if necessary.35
Mastopexy is particularly challenging in massive weight loss patients because of severe tissue
atrophy and skin excess. An inverted-T design

permits maximum skin excision that includes

redundant lateral chest wall skin. One method of
treating the underlying gland first raises medial
and lateral parenchymal flaps and then sutures
the two flaps and the central gland high to the
rib periosteum with permanent sutures. Gland
imbrication to improve projection and narrow
the breast then follows (Fig.9).36 The breast can
also be autoaugmented using a flap of deepithelialized lateral chest wall tissue or upper abdominal
tissue.37

KEY ELEMENTS OF SURGERY

Technical Elements of Surgery
Breast surgery should be performed with the
capability of sitting the patient completely upright
as needed during the course of the procedure.
This requires proper positioning on the operating table and stabilization of the head and arms.
(See Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1,

649e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

Fig. 9. Mastopexy in the massive weight loss patient. (Left) The gland is deepithelialized following inverted-T incisions. Medial and
lateral flaps are created and the central parenchyma is sutured high on the second rib periosteum. (Center) The medial and lateral
flaps are then sutured to the ribs at lower levels. (Right) The gland is then suture plicated along several lines to cone the breast and
tighten the lower pole.

which demonstrates this technique, available in

the "Related Videos" section of the full-text article
on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://
links.lww.com/PRS/A849.)
Circumareolar Mastopexy
After implant placement through a periareolar incision, the mastopexy is designed. Outer
diameters of 7cm or less will avoid the aesthetic
problems described previously. The inner diameter may be at the areolar margin or within it
depending on the final areolar diameter desired.
Tailor-tacking with the patient upright is useful to
preview the benefits of circumareolar mastopexy

and to confirm the dimensions and shape of the

skin excision pattern. The design typically has a
greater vertical than horizontal diameter to maximize lift while minimizing circumareolar skin tension. It is not necessary to undermine the outer
incision edge. A wagon-wheel purse-string suture
using 2-0 polytetrafluoroethylene (Surgiform
Technology, Lugoff, S.C.) is placed before final
skin closure. (See Video, Supplemental Digital
Content 2, which demonstrates breast augmentation with circumareolar mastopexy, available in
the "Related Videos" section of the full-text article
on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://
links.lww.com/PRS/A850.)

Video 1. Supplemental Digital Content 1, demonstrating the technique

of proper positioning of the patient on the operating table and stabilization of the head and arms, is available in the Related Videos section of
the full-text article on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.
lww.com/PRS/A849.

650e

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

Video 2. Supplemental Digital Content 2, demonstrating breast

augmentation with circumareolar mastopexy, is available in the
Related Videos section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.
com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/PRS/A850.

Vertical Mastopexy
Markings are made by a rotating the breast
medially and laterally to determine vertical limb
placement (Fig.10). The need for an implant
can be determined together with the patient by

visualizing upper pole contour with the breast

rotated to simulate mastopexy. A significant concavity suggests that an implant should be used.
The vertical limbs are approximated temporarily. The vertical incision can be further imbricated by tailor-tacking with the patient sitting at
90 degrees. (See Video, Supplemental Digital
Content 3, which demonstrates marking and skin
excision design concepts, available in the "Related
Videos" section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/
PRS/A851.) This may enhance lift but, done excessively, will flatten lower pole contour.
When combined with augmentation, either
portion can be performed first. Many patients seek
maximum lift and somewhat reluctantly accept
the need for an implant. Performing the mastopexy first allows the greatest amount of skin to be
removed. This will achieve maximum lift. A sizer
is then placed to determine the smallest implant
needed to fill the upper pole concavity. Patients
seeking both a significant size increase and a lift
can have the augmentation portion performed
first to satisfy the size requirement. However, this
practice may limit the amount of skin that can be

Fig. 10. Markings for vertical mastopexy. (Above, left) The new nipple position is marked relative to the inframammary crease level.
(Above, center) The central breast meridian is marked under the breast. (Above, right) The breast is manually rotated medially just
enough to produce optimal lower pole contour. A vertical line is made along the axis determined by the new nipple position mark
and the central meridian mark under the breast. (Below, left) The breast is then rotated laterally in a similar fashion and the second
vertical line is made between the two reference points. (Below, center) The vertical lines are then either extended to the new nipple
position (shown) or to the junction with the circumareolar design when a circumvertical method is used. (Below, right) The breast
is then lifted and the vertical limbs drawn in a converging fashion to end at a point that lies along the central meridian but at least
1cm above the inframammary crease.

651e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

Video 3. Supplemental Digital Content 3, which demonstrates marking

and skin excision design concepts, is available in the Related Videos section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://
links.lww.com/PRS/A851.

removed, possibly compromising the amount of

lift possible.
The implant pocket incision is best positioned
transversely between the vertical incisions close to
breast base. Avoiding parallel, overlying pocket
and mastopexy incisions reduces the potential for
scar contraction deformities and better isolates
the implant pocket. The implants can be placed
in a subpectoral plane and the muscle partially
released as necessary from the overlying breast
tissue to establish optimal contour (dual-plane
technique) (Fig.11).38 (See Video, Supplemental
Digital Content 4, which demonstrates implant
considerations in augmentation-mastopexy, available in the "Related Videos" section of the full-text
article on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at
http://links.lww.com/PRS/A852.)
The new location of the nipple-areola complex is best determined after the implants are
placed and with the patient in the sitting position. (See Video, Supplemental Digital Content
5, which demonstrates positioning and insetting
of the nipple-areola complex, available in the
"Related Videos" section of the full-text article on
PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.
lww.com/PRS/A853.)
Y-Scar Vertical Mastopexy
When both nipple position and areolar diameter are normal, mastopexy does not require a
circumareolar incision initially. After the vertical
incision is closed, the patient is sat up and the
nipple position and areolar diameter are assessed.
If both are still optimal, a periareolar incision is
made and small amounts of skin are excised to
restore a round inferior areolar shape. Occasionally, small amounts of tissue deep to the lower

652e

areola must be excised to avoid subareolar fullness just above the incision.
Inverted-T Mastopexy
The vertical limbs are designed by displacing
the breast manually to each side, similar to vertical mastopexy, except that they diverge rather
than converge inferiorly. They usually extend
7cm from the planned new nipple position. A
closed design where the limbs completely skirt
the areolar margin is preferred whenever possible because it provides complete freedom in
locating the nipple and choosing final areolar
diameter.
The lateral horizontal limbs may extend as
far as the axilla in massive weight loss patients.
Extensive flap elevation over the gland is unnecessary unless a parenchymal stabilization or
autoaugmentation procedure is included. (See
Video, Supplemental Digital Content 6, which
demonstrates inverted-T mastopexy in the massive weight loss patient, available in the "Related
Videos" section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.
lww.com/PRS/A854.)
Implants can be placed through a breast base
incision. Placing a sizer, stapling the incisions, and
sitting the patient up helps determine optimal
implant volume by incremental air insufflation.
Adjustments to the incision pattern can be performed at the same time to optimize shape.

AVOIDANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF

COMPLICATIONS
Areolar herniation may occur in circumareolar mastopexy because of an excess of areolar skin

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

Fig. 11. Breast augmentation with vertical mastopexy. (Above, left) Grade I ptosis with
postpartum atrophy and enlarged areolar diameters. (Above, right) Vertical mastopexy
with 175-g subpectoral round silicone implants. (Below, left) Grade II ptosis with postpartum atrophy and elongated nipples. (Below, right) Vertical mastopexy with 225-g
subpectoral round silicone implants and nipple reduction.

in relation to the areolar circumference. This can

be avoided either by reducing the areolar diameter further, not overtightening the purse-string
suture, or both.
Purse-string suture breakage with areolar
spreading can occur, as can knot exposure when
not adequately buried. A palpable suture ring
can occur with simple circumferential suture
technique using nylon or polypropylene. This is

not generally seen with wagon-wheel purse-string

technique using polytetrafluoroethylene.
Central flattening, wide scars, pleats, large
areolar diameters, and loss of areolar skin texture
can result from excessive circumareolar skin excision. Implant downsizing may ameliorate these
problems. It may also produce sufficient skin laxity to convert to a vertical mastopexy. This will
reduce the areolar circumference by the distance

653e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

Video 4. Supplemental Digital Content 4, demonstrating

implant considerations in augmentation-mastopexy, is available
in the Related Videos section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/PRS/A852.

Video 5. Supplemental Digital Content 5, demonstrating the positioning and insetting of the nipple-areola complex, is available in
the Related Videos section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.
com, or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/PRS/A853.

between the vertical limbs, further improving all

of the problems described.
Ptosis correction with an inverted-T mastopexy following subglandular augmentation risks
nipple and areola necrosis. The combined factors
of a subglandular pocket plane, a circumareolar
incision, thinned tissues from implant compression, and a concomitant capsulectomy, if necessary, can severely compromise nipple and areolar
blood supply. Skin flaps must be very conservatively elevated in these cases.10
Complications from skin-only mastopexy are
rare beyond scar quality issues. Skin, nipple, or
fat necrosis can occur with more invasive procedures. One study comparing circumareolar, vertical, and inverted-T techniques found suture
spitting as the most common problem with all
three, with excessive scarring next. Complication
rates were 41.5 percent for circumareolar, 9.7
percent for vertical, and 14 percent for invertedT techniques.39
Seroma, capsular contracture, and implant
malposition are among the added risks when
simultaneous augmentation is performed. Complications in a study of 321 patients undergoing
augmentation mastopexy included saline implant
deflation (3.7 percent), capsular contracture (1.9
percent), poor scarring (2.5 percent), areolar
asymmetry (2.2 percent), and recurrent ptosis
(2.2 percent) (Therapeutic, Level IV Evidence).40
Common indications for mastopexy revision
include recurrent ptosis and scar problems. Circumareolar techniques have the highest revision rate, inverted-T methods have the highest
incidence of bottoming out, and vertical techniques have the highest incidence of asymmetry.39
Another study corroborated the highest incidence of revision occurring with circumareolar
methods (27 percent) compared with all other
methods (14.6 percent).4 When combined with
augmentation, indications for revision include
recurrent ptosis, capsular contracture, implant
malposition, implant deflation, size change, poor
scars, nipple malposition, or some combination
thereof.3,4,40

OUTCOMES
Video 6. Supplemental Digital Content 6, demonstrating invertedT mastopexy in the massive weight loss patient, is available in the
Related Videos section of the full-text article on PRSJournal.com,
or, for Ovid users, at http://links.lww.com/PRS/A854.

654e

There are no available studies comparing different mastopexy methods, nor are there any that
objectively report on long-term follow-up. Most
reports are single-author level IV or V studies.
There are no studies that compare the efficacy of
more invasive parenchymal fixation, redistribution,

Volume 132, Number 4 Mastopexy

and autoaugmentation techniques with skin-only
procedures. A recent meta-analysis study failed to
demonstrate the superiority of any one method
but did reveal previously unappreciated aesthetic
issues such as areolar shape problems.24
Physician satisfaction with mastopexy was rated
as 4 (range, 1 to 5) by 78.4 percent in one study.39
The greatest source of dissatisfaction stemmed
from circumareolar technique. Patient satisfaction
was rated as 4 (range, 1 to 5) in 49.2 percent and as
5 in another 40.9 percent. Newer instruments for
evaluating patient satisfaction such as the BREASTQ may improve assessment of current practices.

CONCLUSIONS
Mastopexy encompasses a diverse group of
incision and parenchymal management options.
Circumareolar, vertical, and inverted-T incision
designs are the main incision types used. Mastopexy can either be a skin-only procedure or include
parenchymal fixation, redistribution, or autoaugmentation. Parenchymal management options
have not yet been objectively compared with each
other for efficacy. Mastopexy can be an adjunct to
breast augmentation using limited circumareolar
skin excision, or implants can be an adjunct to
mastopexy when used simply to fill out the upper
pole. Combining implants and mastopexy is associated with higher complication rates. Revisions for
mastopexy alone are fewer and most commonly
performed for recurrent ptosis and scarring problems. Patient and surgeon satisfaction with mastopexy techniques is high. However, mastopexy
and augmentation mastopexy, despite being performed far less often than breast augmentation
and breast reduction, are associated with a disproportionately high incidence of litigation.
David A. Hidalgo, M.D.
655 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10065
[email protected]

REFERENCES
1. Gorney M. Ten years experience in aesthetic surgery malpractice claims. Aesthet Surg J. 2001;21:569571.
2. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2011 plastic surgery
procedural statistics. Available at: http://www.plasticsurgery.
org/News-and-Resources/2011-Statistics-.html.
Accessed
January 15, 2013.
3. Spear SL, Boehmler JH IV, Clemens MW. Augmentation/
mastopexy: A 3-year review of a single surgeons practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:136S147S; discussion
148S149S, 150S151S.
4. Stevens WG, Stoker DA, Freeman ME, Quardt SM, Hirsch
EM, Cohen R. Is one-stage breast augmentation with

mastopexy safe and effective? A review of 186 primary cases.

Aesthet Surg J. 2006;26:674681.
5. Calobrace MB, Herdt DR, Cothron KJ. Simultaneous augmentation/mastopexy: A retrospective 5-year review of 332
consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:145156.
6. De Benito J, Snchez K. Key points in mastopexy. Aesthetic
Plast Surg. 2010;34:711715.
7. Regnault P. Breast ptosis: Definition and treatment. Clin Plast
Surg. 1976;3:193203.
8. Spear SL, Dayan JH, Clemens MW. Augmentation mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36:105115, vii; discussion 117.
9. Puckett CL, Meyer VH, Reinisch JF. Crescent mastopexy and
augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75:533543.
10. Handel N. Secondary mastopexy in the augmented patient: A
recipe for disaster. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(Suppl):152S
163S; discussion 164S.
11. Gruber RP, Jones HW Jr. The donut mastopexy: Indications
and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:3438.
12. Erol OO, Spira M. A mastopexy technique for mild to moderate ptosis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:603609.
13. Brink RR. Management of true ptosis of the breast. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 1993;91:657662.
14. Spear SL, Kassan M, Little JW. Guidelines in concentric mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;85:961966.
15. Spear SL, Giese SY, Ducic I. Concentric mastopexy revisited.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:12941299; discussion 1300.
16. Hammond DC, Alfonso D, Khuthaila DK. Mastopexy using
the short scar periareolar inferior pedicle reduction technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:15331539.
17. Benelli L. A new periareolar mammaplasty: The round

block technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1990;14:93100.
18. Hidalgo DA. Y-scar vertical mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg.
2007;120:17491754.
19. Strmbeck JO. Reduction mammaplasty. Surg Clin North Am.
1971;51:453469.
20. Flowers RS, Smith EM Jr. Flip-flap mastopexy. Aesthetic Plast
Surg. 1998;22:425429.
21. Regnault P. Breast reduction: B technique. Plast Reconstr

Surg. 1980;65:840845.
22. Chiari A Jr. The L short-scar mammaplasty. Clin Plast Surg.
2002;29:401409, vi.
23. Goulian D Jr. Dermal mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg.

1971;47:105110.
24. Swanson E. A retrospective photometric study of 82 published reports of mastopexy and breast reduction. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:12821301.
25. de la Plaza R, de la Cruz L, Moreno C. Mastopexy utilizing a
dermoglandular hammock flap. Aesthet Surg J. 2005;25:3136.
26. Ritz M, Silfen R, Southwick G. Fascial suspension mastopexy.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:8694.
27. Colwell AS, Driscoll D, Breuing KH. Mastopexy techniques
after massive weight loss: An algorithmic approach and
review of the literature. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63:2833.
28. Lejour M. Vertical mammaplasty and liposuction of the

breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;94:100114.
29. Kim P, Kim KK, Casas LA. Superior pedicle autoaugmentation mastopexy: A review of 34 consecutive patients. Aesthet
Surg J. 2010;30:201210.
30. Hall-Findlay EJ. Pedicles in vertical breast reduction and
mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg. 2002;29:379391.
31. Foustanos A, Zavrides H. A double-flap technique: An alternative mastopexy approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:5560.
32. Graf R, Biggs TM. In search of better shape in mastopexy and
reduction mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:309
317; discussion 318.

655e

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery October 2013

33. Graf R, Reis de Araujo LR, Rippel R, Neto LG, Pace DT,
Biggs T. Reduction mammaplasty and mastopexy using the
vertical scar and thoracic wall flap technique. Aesthetic Plast
Surg. 2003;27:612.
34. Ges JC. Periareolar mastopexy: Double skin technique with
mesh support. Aesthet Surg J. 2003;23:129135.
35. de Bruijn HP, Johannes S. Mastopexy with 3D preshaped
mesh for long-term results: Development of the internal bra
system. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32:757765.
36. Rubin JP. Mastopexy after massive weight loss: Dermal suspension and total parenchymal reshaping. Aesthet Surg J.
2006;26:214222.

656e

37. Losken A, Holtz DJ. Versatility of the superomedial pedicle in

managing the massive weight loss breast: The rotation-advancement technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:10601068.
38. Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: Optimizing
implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast
types. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:12551272.
39. Rohrich RJ, Gosman AA, Brown SA, Reisch J. Mastopexy
preferences: A survey of board-certified plastic surgeons.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:16311638.
40. Stevens WG, Freeman ME, Stoker DA, Quardt SM, Cohen R,
Hirsch EM. One-stage mastopexy with breast augmentation: A
review of 321 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:16741679.