ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2021
A Review and Measurement Study of the Central Mound Pedicle for Breast Reduction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and Complications of Mobile Inferior Pedicle Breast Reduction as a Modification of Inferior Pedicle.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Total Pedicle Preservation Mastopexy: Technique, Safety, and Long-term Results.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.Annals of plastic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The central mound approach to breast reduction has been the subject of recent interest in the literature. However, quantitative evaluation using measurements is lacking. This review was undertaken to objectively evaluate changes in breast dimensions, and to compare the results to a popular alternative method, vertical mammaplasty.
methodsAn electronic search was performed using PubMed to identify all publications endorsing the central mound technique. Published lateral photographs were matched for size and orientation, with computer assistance. Measurements included breast projection, upper pole projection, lower pole level, breast mound elevation, nipple level, and breast parenchymal ratio. Results were compared with published measurement data for the vertical technique.
resultsTwenty-three manuscripts were identified. Ten included photographs suitable for analysis. On average, breast projection decreased 1.1 cm after central mound breast reduction (
conclusionsFor each measurement comparison, the vertical method outperforms the central mound. Because of its anatomy and geometry, measurements show that the vertical method for breast reduction is more favorable than a central mound dissection. This method can also be used safely for secondary breast reductions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.