Corduff and Taylor [1] from Australia reported on their technique for vertical mastopexy with the use of a large vascularized flap rotated to fill the upper pole of the breast. They present 25 patients, over 2 years, who have undergone the procedure; 18 were primary mastopexies and 7 were mastopexies after implant removal. The authors were very clear when they declared that ‘‘the goals of a mastopexy are to restore shape and volume,’’ but the biggest difficulty is to maintain this shape for long-term follow-up. If we do not use an implant, the goal is to remove the tissue from the inferior pole to avoid an earlier bottoming out. The challenge is how to do it. The authors rotate a flap from the lower breast gland as a medial pedicle flap into a pocket beneath the upper pole. They describe the anatomy and explain the technique very well. However, I did not see differences between their technique and Hall-Findlay’s technique [2]. Hall-Findlay uses a medial pedicle flap to move and fill the upper pole, but she does not undermine the upper pole as the authors do. Maybe this is the only difference between the two techniques. The authors wrote in the Introduction: ‘‘Techniques have been described using small glandular flaps transposed to increase projection [2–7], but these do not adequately fill out the upper pole.’’ Therefore, the authors’ ideas conflict with the already established technique, as Hall-Findlay (ref. 6 in Corduff and Taylor) and Graf and Biggs (ref. 2 in Corduff and Taylor) [3] described, in which they rotate flaps from the middle and inferior pole of the breast, respectively, to fill the upper pole. Regarding Graf’s technique, the main goal is upper-pole fullness, where a chest wall-based flap is moved superiorly, passing under a loop of the pectoralis muscle flap, and is fixed to the upper pole reaching the second intercostal space. This provides a long-lasting result with upper-pole fullness. We can add new techniques and new approaches but never try to decrease the merits of the already described techniques. In breast mastopexy, no one is perfect because the breast is a not a fixed organ and changes with the aging process. Every technique seeks to maintain the results for long-term follow-up, but only a few have reached these goals. We can observe in this paper (Figs. 7–10) that the postoperative results are similar to many techniques with the upper pole not completely full as the authors try to show. When we have so many different techniques to fix one problem, it means that no one is perfect; as Tom Biggs always says: ‘‘No key fits every lock.’’ We have to analyze every case and try to use the best for each case. One of the important aspects is the skin quality of the patients. It sometimes guides the final result regardless of the technique used. I agree with some of the authors’ points regarding attempts to improve upper-pole fullness in mastopexy by using well-vascularized flaps when the patient has enough breast tissue to use. I congratulate the authors for embracing this challenge, treating breast ptosis with the patient’s own tissues to obtain a successful result with mastopexy. Certainly there is no one right way to do this. It will depend upon the experience and preference of the surgeon and on each individual pattern of the breast. R. M. Graf (&) Division of Plastic Surgery, Hospital de Clinicas, School of Medicine, Federal University of Parana, Rua Solimoes 1175 Merces, Curitiba, PR 80810-070, Brazil e-mail: ruthgraf@bighost.com.br
Read full abstract