Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36061406›Full record

ReviewJPRAS open2022

Longevity of ptosis correction in mastopexy and reduction mammaplasty: A systematic review of techniques.

Ryan D Wagner, Jeffrey L Lisiecki, Michael V Chiodo, Rod J Rohrich

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07657962 (Effect of Autologous Free Dermal Graft Use on Lower Pole Stability in Superior Pedicle Vertical Scar Reduction Mammaplasty), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07657962 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Autologous Free Dermal Graft Use on Lower Pole Stability in Superior Pedicle Vertical Scar Reduction Mammaplasty: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCumhuriyet University HospitalRan2026 to 2028Enrolled70ConditionsBreast Ptosis, Mammaplasty, Lower Pole Elongation, Postoperative Breast PseudoptosisArmsAutologous Free Dermal Graft Support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Fallacy of the Bioengineered Breast.Annals of plastic surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ryan D WagnerDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
Jeffrey L LisieckiDallas Plastic Surgery Institute, Dallas, TX, United States.
Michael V ChiodoDallas Plastic Surgery Institute, Dallas, TX, United States.
Rod J RohrichDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mastopexy and reduction mammaplasty are commonly performed procedures in plastic surgery with many variations in incision pattern, pedicle design, and additional support maneuvers. Aesthetically pleasing on table results are widely accomplished; however, the longevity of the outcome and sustained correction of ptosis or pseudoptosis is not universal. A systematic review of mastopexy and reduction mammaplasty procedures was performed to investigate which techniques provided the greatest long-term correction of ptosis. Methods: A broad search of the literature was performed using the PubMed database from inception to December of 2021. Study characteristics, number of patients, number of breasts, technique, outcome, and average follow-up time were extracted for analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale when applicable. Results: The primary search yielded 1123 articles. After two levels of screening, 24 articles were identified for analysis. This included 16 case series, seven cohort studies, and one randomized controlled study. From these studies, 1235 patients and 2235 breasts were analyzed. The majority of articles reported on a change in the nipple to inframammary fold and sternal notch to nipple distances. Conclusions: In the analytical studies, superior and superomedial pedicles tended to provide greater long-term stability than inferior pedicles. Mesh, dermal suspension flaps, and muscular slings showed promise in providing additional support over standard techniques. No single procedure is ideal for all patients; however, this systematic review provides a valuable description of techniques and long-term outcomes to guide surgical planning.

Indexed as

Bottoming outBreast reductionMastopexyPseudoptosisPtosisReduction mammaplasty

Identifiers

PMID36061406
PMCPMC9428726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.