ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
No-Vertical-Scar Reduction Mammaplasty in Asian Patients: A Comparison of Superior Versus Inferior Pedicle Techniques.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently popular reduction mammaplasty techniques, namely the inverted-T and vertical scar patterns, frequently lead to conspicuous scarring in Asian patients, given their racial predisposition toward hypertrophic scars and hyperpigmentation. The no-vertical-scar approach thus offers a compelling alternative. By preserving the skin bridge between the areola and the inframammary fold, this procedure can significantly improve the aesthetic contour of the lower breast pole. However, guidance on optimal pedicle selection for this specific technique remains scarce in the literature. This study introduces the surgical details of a superior pedicle no-vertical-scar breast reduction for the first time. Moreover, we compared the practical outcomes of superior and inferior pedicle designs, intending to help facilitate its broader clinical application.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on 76 Asian women undergoing bilateral no-vertical-scar reduction mammaplasty between January 2017 and December 2022. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: superior pedicle (n = 29) and inferior pedicle (n = 47). The procedure involved glandular resection and reshaping without a vertical skin incision. Outcomes were evaluated based on advantages, disadvantages, complications, and patient satisfaction of the two surgical approaches using the BREAST-Q Reduction/Mastopexy module over a mean follow-up of 14.5 months.
resultsBoth cohorts demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements in all BREAST-Q domains, including satisfaction with breasts and psychosocial well-being, compared to preoperative baselines (P < 0.0001). Complications were minor and infrequent, with no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). The superior pedicle technique facilitated effective remodeling of the inframammary fold (IMF) in ptotic breasts. Conversely, the inferior pedicle technique, supported by a dual blood supply (deep and subdermal), allowed for larger volume resections suitable for severe hypertrophy with a reliable safety profile.
conclusionNo-vertical-scar breast reduction is especially suitable for Asian patients with moderate to severe breast hypertrophy and severe loose breasts. The superior pedicle method can remodel the inframammary fold, and the inferior pedicle method is more suitable for hypertrophic breasts. 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
42412173What 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.