SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Inferior Pedicle and Superomedial Pedicle Techniques in Reduction Mammaplasty for Gigantomastia: Postoperative Complications, Aesthetic Outcomes and Quality of Life.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMacromastia, particularly in its severe form-gigantomastia-is characterized by excessive mammary tissue growth and significantly impairs quality of life through physical symptoms, psychological distress and functional limitations. Reduction mammaplasty remains the standard of care, aiming to relieve symptoms while preserving breast function and aesthetics. Several surgical techniques based on vascular pedicles have been developed, including the superomedial and inferior pedicle approaches. However, few studies have compared these techniques in patients requiring large-volume resections.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the inferior and superomedial pedicle techniques in patients with gigantomastia, defined as a resection volume ≥ 800 grams per breast. Multiple databases were searched for studies published from 2010 onward. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4.1, applying a random-effects model. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, aesthetic results, and quality of life indicators. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsEight comparative studies were included. No statistically significant differences were found in the primary outcomes. However, trends favored the superomedial pedicle in most metrics, including overall complication rate, NAC necrosis and NAC sensitivity.
conclusionsBoth techniques appear to be safe and effective options for patients with severe macromastia. The superomedial pedicle may offer certain advantages in specific outcomes, but current comparative evidence remains limited. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to better inform surgical decision-making in this population. 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
41233654What 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.