Background This study reviewed mammary glandular function and breastfeeding after reduction mammaplasty performed via four different surgical techniques. Patients who underwent this procedure were asked to answer questions concerning the birth of a child, natural breastfeeding, and the reasons why natural breastfeeding was not performed or was interrupted. Methods Between 1992 and 2001, 368 reduction mammaplasties were performed in the Department of Plastic Surgery at the ‘‘La Sapienza’’ University of Rome. After reduction mammaplasty, 105 patients had a child and were enrolled in the study. Breastfeeding data were compared with data from hospital records at the time of surgery in terms of patient age, reduction mammaplasty technique, sensitivity of the nipple–areola complex after the operation, and proportion of the gland removed. Results Maternal breastfeeding was considered to have occurred if it lasted more than 3 weeks and was not accompanied by any nutritional supplements. Babies were breastfed by 60.7% of the patients who underwent a superior pedicle reduction mammaplasty, by 43.5% of those who underwent an inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty, by 48% of those who underwent a medial pedicle reduction mammaplasty, and by 55.1% of those who underwent a lateral pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Conclusions The findings demonstrate that conservative reduction mammaplasty techniques supported by medical and paramedical staff permit subsequent breastfeeding. In particular, the best outcomes resulted from superior pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Skilled execution of the surgical technique is mandatory to guarantee adequate vascularization and sensitivity of the nipple–areola complex and to spare as many of the glandular ducts and lobules as possible.

Breastfeeding after reduction mammaplasty using different techniques

CIGNA, EMANUELE;
2008-01-01

Abstract

Background This study reviewed mammary glandular function and breastfeeding after reduction mammaplasty performed via four different surgical techniques. Patients who underwent this procedure were asked to answer questions concerning the birth of a child, natural breastfeeding, and the reasons why natural breastfeeding was not performed or was interrupted. Methods Between 1992 and 2001, 368 reduction mammaplasties were performed in the Department of Plastic Surgery at the ‘‘La Sapienza’’ University of Rome. After reduction mammaplasty, 105 patients had a child and were enrolled in the study. Breastfeeding data were compared with data from hospital records at the time of surgery in terms of patient age, reduction mammaplasty technique, sensitivity of the nipple–areola complex after the operation, and proportion of the gland removed. Results Maternal breastfeeding was considered to have occurred if it lasted more than 3 weeks and was not accompanied by any nutritional supplements. Babies were breastfed by 60.7% of the patients who underwent a superior pedicle reduction mammaplasty, by 43.5% of those who underwent an inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty, by 48% of those who underwent a medial pedicle reduction mammaplasty, and by 55.1% of those who underwent a lateral pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Conclusions The findings demonstrate that conservative reduction mammaplasty techniques supported by medical and paramedical staff permit subsequent breastfeeding. In particular, the best outcomes resulted from superior pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Skilled execution of the surgical technique is mandatory to guarantee adequate vascularization and sensitivity of the nipple–areola complex and to spare as many of the glandular ducts and lobules as possible.
2008
Chiummariello, S; Cigna, Emanuele; Buccheri, Em; Dessy, La; Alfano, C; Scuderi, N.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/851986
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact