ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Comparison of Clinical Associations and Outcomes Between Superomedial and Inferior Pedicle Breast Reduction Surgery: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and Complications of Mobile Inferior Pedicle Breast Reduction as a Modification of Inferior Pedicle.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications After Superomedial Pedicle Reduction Mammaplasty.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHistorically, the inferior pedicle (IFP) procedure has been the dominant technique for the treatment of macromastia; however, the superomedial pedicle (SMP) approach allows for decreased operative times, reduced incision tension, and improved and longer lasting superior pole fullness. The goal of this study is to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with the inferior pedicle and superomedial pedicle approaches to reduction mammoplasty. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted through a single surgeon's experience with a total of 444 patients from 2005-2024. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on their breast reduction pedicle type. Chi-square tests and linear regression analysis were utilized to compare patient characteristics and surgical outcomes of the two pedicle types.
resultsOf the total 444 reduction mammoplasty patients, 114 (25.7%) underwent the IFP technique and 330 (74.3%) underwent the SMP reduction. Patients in the IFP cohort had a significantly higher total complication rate of 57.0%, while the SMP cohort had a total complication rate of 46.1%. The prevalence of cellulitis was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups. 21.9% of IFP patients developed cellulitis post-operatively compared to 7.0% of SMP patients.
conclusionThis study supports the notion that superior pedicle reduction mammoplasty is as safe and may result in fewer complications than the current inferior pedicle standard. The overall complication rate, and specifically prevalence of cellulitis within the IFP technique may be attributed to four main factors: operative time, weight of breast resected, BMI, and drain status. Given the lack of similar findings in the literature, we believe our results may reflect differences in preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative management. Both techniques appear to have comparable complication rates and should remain essential skills for surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40634764What 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.