ReviewAnnals of plastic surgery2025
A Review of Mammaplasties With Measurements: Evaluating Autoaugmentation, Mesh, Acellular Dermal Matrix, and the Wise Pattern.
Review in Annals of plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical safety and breast symmetry after injectable acellular dermal fibers reconstruction: an MR-based volumetric study.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- The Internal Bra: Insisting on Scientific Evaluation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of Circumareolar Mastopexy for Gynecomastia with a Semicircular Incision.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Mastopexy and the "Antigravity Flap".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundA recent review article summarizes the discussion of mastopexy into 2 "emerging" approaches-mastopexy with autoaugmentation and mastopexy with mesh support. These concepts were introduced decades ago. This quantitative review was undertaken to explore the evidence.
methodsAn electronic literature review was conducted to identify publications that evaluated mammaplasties using a 2-dimensional measurement method that is (uniquely) capable of comparing important breast parameters, specifically breast projection and upper-pole projection.
resultsMeasurement data from 20 publications were tabulated. Women treated with vertical mammaplasties showed mean increases in both breast projection (+0.69 cm) and upper-pole projection (+0.64 cm). Patients treated with nonvertical methods lost 0.77 cm of breast projection, on average. Gain in upper-pole projection was marginal (+0.13 cm). Both increments were significantly greater for vertical methods ( P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001). Implants boosted breast projection and upper-pole projection. There was essentially no benefit in breast projection or upper-pole projection in patients who received mesh. DISCUSSION: Despite an intuitive appeal, autoaugmentation methods do not perform. No parenchymal rearrangement can increase volume. An implant is needed to provide substantial upper-pole fullness. Vertical mammaplasties consistently outperform Wise pattern methods because of a more favorable geometry, trading width for projection rather than the reverse. Despite claims of "support," there is no evidence for improved breast shape or durability using mesh or acellular dermal matrix. An "internal bra" is a marketing concept with no reliable supportive evidence. Financial conflicts are a major consideration.
conclusionsA recommitment to science and measurements is needed to guide treatment recommendations. Women should not be advised that autoaugmentation can mimic the effect of an implant; nor should they be offered mesh or ADM. The vertical mammaplasty should replace the Wise pattern as the preferred mammaplasty design. Vertical augmentation/mastopexy is a powerful combination.
Indexed as
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.