Download PDF
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 2017; 49(06): 390-398
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-113132
Originalarbeit
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Die Ribeiro-Technik bei Gigantomastie – Review von 294 Reduktionsplastiken in 8 Jahren

Ribeiro-Technique in Gigantomastia – Review of 294 Reduction Mammaplasties in 8 Years
Andreas Wolter
,
Naja Pluto
,
Till Scholz
,
Jens Diedrichson
,
Andreas Arens-Landwehr
,
Jutta Liebau
Further Information

Publication History

02/20/2017

05/28/2017

Publication Date:
01 August 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Eine Mammareduktionplastik bei Gigantomastie stellt eine Herausforderung in der Mammachirurgie selbst bei sehr erfahrenen plastischen Chirurgen dar. Extrem lange Mamillenstiele beeinträchtigen die Blutversorgung des Mamillenareolenkomplexes. Der massiv gedehnte Hautmantel erschwert die Brustformung und effektive Reduktion. Die Ribeiro-Technik stellt einen etablierten Standard zur Mammareduktion in unserer Klinik dar. Ziel der Studie war ein Review unserer Vorgehensweise bei Gigantomastie im Vergleich mit der aktuellen Literatur.

Patienten und Methoden Im Zeitraum von 01/2009–12/2016 erfolgten in unserer Klinik bei 760 Patientinnen 1247 Mammareduktionsplastiken. In 294 Reduktionen (23,6 %) war das Einschlusskriterium der Gigantomastie (Resektionsgewicht > 1000 g pro Brust) erfüllt. Die Technik nach Ribeiro mit superomedialer Mamillenstielung und Bildung eines inferioren dermoglandulären Lappens zur Auffüllung des oberen Brustpols und Prävention eines bottoming outs wurde als Standard implementiert. Bei Patientinnen mit einem Mamillen-Jugulum-Abstand von > 40 cm erfolgte eine freie Brustwarzentransplantation. Die Outcome-Parameter Komplikationsrate, Patientenzufriedenheit, Brustwarzensensibilität und Notwendigkeit einer Korrekturoperation wurden retrospektiv überprüft.

Ergebnisse Bei 174 Patientinnen erfolgten 294 Mammareduktionsplastiken mit mehr als 1000 g pro Brust. Das Resektionsgewicht lag im Mittel bei 1389,6 g pro Brust (1000–4580 g). Das Durchschnittsalter betrug 43,5 (18–76) Jahre, der durchschnittliche Body-Mass-Index (BMI) war 29,2 (19–40) kg/m2, der durchschnittliche Mamillen-Jugulum-Abstand war 34,8 (27–52) cm, die durchschnittliche OP-Dauer betrug 117 (72–213) Minuten. Bei 30 Reduktionen erfolgte eine freie Brustwarzentransplantation. Die Komplikationsrate lag bei insgesamt 7,8 %. Korrekturoperationen erfolgten in 16 %. 93 % der Patientinnen waren „sehr zufrieden“ bis „zufrieden“ mit dem ästhetischen Ergebnis bei in 88 % „sehr gut“ bis „gut“ erhaltener Brustwarzensensibilität.

Fazit Bei der Ribeiro-Technik handelt es sich um eine gut etablierte, vielseitig einsetzbare Standardtechnik zur Mammareduktion, die reproduzierbare, formstabile Ergebnisse in hoher Qualität liefert. Bei Patientinnen mit Gigantomastie stellt dieses Verfahren ebenso eine effektive komplikationsarme Methode dar, um eine Volumenreduktion mit ästhetisch sehr zufriedenstellenden Ergebnissen zu erreichen.

Abstract

Introduction Reduction mammaplasty in patients with gigantomastia is challenging even to very experienced plastic surgeons. Extremely elongated pedicles impair the vascular supply of the nipple-areola complex. Breast shaping and effective reduction are difficult due to the severely stretched skin envelope. The Ribeiro technique is the standard technique for reduction mammaplasty in our clinic. The aim of this study is to review our approach in patients with gigantomastia in comparison to the current literature.

Patients und methods From 01/2009 to 12/2016, we performed 1247 reduction mammaplasties in 760 patients. In 294 reduction mammoplasties (23.6 %), resection weight was more than 1000 g per breast corresponding to the definition of gigantomastia. The Ribeiro technique with a superomedial pedicle and inferior dermoglandular flap for autologous augmentation of the upper pole was implemented as standard procedure. In cases with a sternal notch-nipple distance > 40 cm, free nipple grafting was performed. The outcome parameters complication rate, patient satisfaction with the aesthetic result, nipple sensitivity and surgical revision rate were obtained and retrospectively analysed.

Results In 174 patients, 294 reduction mammaplasties were performed with a resection weight of more than 1000 g per breast. Average resection weight was 1389.6 g (range, 1000–4580 g). Average age was 43.5 years (range, 18–76 years), average body mass index (BMI) was 29.2 kg/m2 (range, 19–40 kg/m2), average sternal notch-nipple distance was 34.8 cm (range, 27–52 cm), average operation time was 117 minutes (range, 72–213 minutes). A free nipple graft was necessary in 30 breasts. Overall complication rate was 7.8 %; secondary surgical revision rate was 16 %. 93 % of the patients were “very satisfied” and “satisfied” with the aesthetic result. Nipple sensitivity was rated “very good” and “good” in 88 %.

Conclusion The Ribeiro technique is a well established, versatile standard technique for reduction mammaplasty, which helps to create high-quality reproducible results with longterm formstable shape. In gigantomastia, this procedure is also very effective to achieve volume reduction and aesthetically pleasing results with a low complication rate.

Schlüsselwörter

Gigantomastie - Makromastie - Mammahypertrophie - Mammareduktion - Brustverkleinerung - Ribeiro Technik - Ribeiro

Key words

gigantomastia - mammahypertrophy - breast surgery - reduction mammaplasty - breast reduction - Ribeiro technique - Ribeiro
 

  • Literaturverzeichnis

  • 1 Lugo LM, Prada M, Kohanzadeh S. et al. Surgical outcomes of gigantomastia breast reduction superomedial pedicle technique: a 12-year retrospective study. Ann Plast Surg 2000; 70 (05) 533-537
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hammond DC, Loffredo M. Breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129: 829e-839e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dancey A, Khan M, Dawson J. et al. Gigantomastia—a classification and review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61: 493-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Regnault P. Breast ptosis: Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg 1976; 3: 193-203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gonzalez MA, Glickman LT, Aladegbami B. et al. Quality of life after breast reduction surgery: a 10-year retrospective analysis using the Breast Q questionnaire: does breast size matter?. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 69: 361-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dabbah A, Lehman Jr JA, Parker MG. et al. Reduction mammaplasty: An outcome analysis. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35: 337-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cunningham BL, Gear AJ, Kerrigan CL. et al. Analysis of breast reduction complications derived from the BRAVO study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 115: 1597-1604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hawtof DB, Levine M, Kapetansky DI. et al. Complications of reduction mammaplasty: Comparison of nipple-areolar graft and pedicle. Ann Plast Surg 1989; 23: 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Koger SE, Sunde D, Press BH. et al. Reduction mammaplasty for Gigantomastia using inferiorly based pedicle and free nipple transposition. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 33: 561-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Nahabedian MY, Mc Gibbon BM, Manson PN. Medial pedicle reduction mammaplasty for severe mammahypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 896-904
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hofman AK, Wuestner-Hofmann MC, Bassetto F. et al. Breast reduction: Modified „Lejour technique“ in 500 large breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 1095-1104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Costa MP, Ching AW, Ferreira MC. Thin superior medial pedicle reduction mammaplasty for severe mammahypertrophy. Aesth Plast Surg 2008; 32: 645-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Landau AG, Hudson DA. Choosing the superomedial pedicle for reduction mammaplasty in gigantomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121: 735-739
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ribeiro L. A new technique for reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1975; 55: 330-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ribeiro L, Accorsi Jr A, Buss A. et al. Creation and evolution of 30 years of the inferior pedicle in reduction mammaplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (03) 960-970
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gradinger GP. Reduction mammaplasty with free nipple-areola graft. Op Tech Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 6: 141-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Casas LA, Byun MY, Depoli PA. Maximizing breast projection after free-nipple-graft reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107: 955-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Oneal RM, Goldstein JA. Rohrich. et al. The superomedial pedicle for nipple transposition. Ann Plast Surg 1991; 26: 117-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hudson DA. Some thoughts on choosing a technique in breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 554-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hammond DC, O’Connor EA, Knoll GM. The Short-Scar periareolar Inferior Pedicle Reduction Technique in Severe Mammary Hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (01) 34-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mottura A. The Vertical Scar Mammaplasty in Gigantomastia: Retrospective Study of 115 patients using the modified Lejour Technique. Aesth Plast Surg 2007; 31: 600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Amini P, Stasch T, Theodorou P. et al. Vertical Reduction Mammaplasty combined with a superomedial pedicle in gigantomastia. Ann Plast Surg 2010; 64: 279-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Heine N, Eisenmann-Klein M, Prantl L. Gigantomasty: treatment with a short vertical scar. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32: 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hall-Findlay EJ. Vertical Breast Reduction. Semin Plast Surg 2004; 18 (03) 211-24
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hall-Findlay EJ, Shestak KC. Breast Reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (04) 531e-44e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hall-Findlay EJ. Aesthetic Breast Surgery: Concepts & Technique. St. Louis: Quality Medical; Chapter 6; 261 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Yuksel F, Karagoz H, Sever C. et al. Experience with vertical mammaplasty: advantages and drawbacks of Hall-Findlay’s superomedial pedicle technique and improving the results by adding modifications to the technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36 (06) 1329-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Palmer JH, Taylor GI. The vascular territories of the anterior chest wall. Br J Plast Surg 1986; 39: 287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Finger RE, Vasquez B, Drew GS. et al. Superomedial pedicle technique of reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83: 471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Karacor-Altuntas Z, Dadaci M, Ince B. et al. Central Pedicle Reduction in Gigantomastia without Free Nipple Graft. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76 (04) 383-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Karacaoglu E, Zienowicz RJ. Septum-Inferior-Medial (SIM)-Based Pedicle: A safe pedicle with well-preserved nipple sensation for reduction in gigantomastia. Aesth Plast Surg 2017; 41: 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wolter A, Scholz T, Pluto N. et al. Mastopexy in Massive Weight Loss Patients – Extended Ribeiro Technique and Usage of the Lateral Intercostal Artery Perforator Flap (LICAP Flap) for Autoaugmentation. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2017 ahead of print
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Roehl K, Craig ES, Gomez V. et al. Breast Reduction: Safe in the Morbidly Obese?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (02) 370-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mojallal A, Moutran M, Shipkov C. et al. Breast reduction in Gigantomastia using the posterosuperior pedicle: An alternative technique, based on preservation of the anterior intercostal artery perforators. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (01) 32-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Swanson E. A retrospective photometric study of 82 published reports of mastopexy an breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (06) 1282-1301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar