Semin Plast Surg 2015; 29(02): 083-084
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1549048
Preface
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Techniques in Breast Reduction and Mastopexy

Rodger H. Brown
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 April 2015 (online)

Zoom Image
Rodger H. Brown, MD

It is my pleasure to serve as guest editor of this issue of Seminars in Plastic Surgery—Techniques in Breast Reduction and Mastopexy. Breast reduction and mastopexy are common operations performed by all plastic surgeons. Although these procedures have only a few basic core principles, it is important for the plastic surgeon to be able to apply these principles across a diverse group of patients with a variety of problems. These challenges range from the small, deflated, ptotic breast to gigantomastia. It even includes patients with breast cancer undergoing reconstruction and male patients with gynecomastia. It is this great variety of patients with different needs, combined with the multitude of different available techniques that make these procedures challenging. In this issue of Seminars in Plastic Surgery, we present five articles that highlight techniques involving this wide spectrum of reduction and mastopexy.

In the first article, the authors describe an innovative technique for reducing complications in augmentation mastopexy through a “delayed fill technique.” In the next article, the authors present a case series, review the authors' technique, and discuss the merits of using the superomedial pedicle in combination with a Wise-pattern skin resection for breast reduction. In the third article, the authors review oncoplastic breast surgery and discuss how to combine our knowledge of breast reconstruction with cosmetic breast reduction and mastopexy techniques to give cancer patients the best outcomes possible. In the fourth article, how to use reduction and mastopexy techniques in revising autologous flap breast reconstructions is discussed, and the authors point out the key differences between reducing and lifting the native breast versus the reconstructed breast. In the final article, a review of the current state of gynecomastia treatment is presented as well as insights into different techniques of reducing the male breast in gynecomastia patients.

I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to all the other authors who took time from their busy schedules to help make this issue possible. Their experience, knowledge, and thoughtfulness shine through in these articles, and it is greatly appreciated. I hope the readers will find them both informative and thought provoking.