The Continuing Appeal but Lack of Evidence for Autoaugmentation in Reduction Mammaplasty

Abstract

Abboud and Dibo's article1 joins a long list of mammaplasty publications claiming to improve upper-pole fullness.2 The authors promote autoaugmentation, a concept that dates to 1975, when Ribeiro3 transferred tissue from the lower pole to the upper pole in an effort to simulate the effect of a breast implant. In my review of 82 articles, measurements on photographs matched for size and orientation failed to support autoaugmentation.2 Nevertheless, the publication of articles making unsubstantiated claims continues unabated.1,4-9 The elements of Abboud and Dido's technique (autoaugmentation, fascial sutures, a lateral pedicle, and liposuction) were described decades ago.2 Whether or not power assistance constitutes an innovation worthy of a new acronym is unclear. Despite long-standing recognition of the importance of photographic standardization,10,11 investigators continue to present nonstandardized photographs in an effort to prove that their method effectively restores upper-pole volume.1,2,4-9 Common photographic inconsistencies include different focal distances,1,2,4,6,8,9 tilt of the torso,1,2,4,6-9 and arm positions.1,2,6-9 The patient in the authors' Figure 4 …