How to Approach Secondary Breast Reduction: International Trends and a Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND Secondary breast reduction is complex and poses significant challenges to surgeons. Complication rates exceed those of primary reduction, commonly caused by impaired vascular supply of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC). Literature on the topic is scare and provides contradicting recommendations, especially with regard to pedicle choice in cases with unknown primary reduction technique. Aim of this study was to investigate international trends and to compare findings with literature. METHODS A large-scale web-based questionnaire on international trends in mammaplasty (mastopexy and breast reduction) was designed and distributed to over five thousand surgeons in eight geographic regions. The presented manuscript evaluated information regarding pedicle choice in secondary breast reduction and compared data to literature identified in a systematic review. RESULTS The survey was completed by 1431 participants. Overall, secondary procedures were performed in less than 5% or in 5 to 10% of cases. The preferred pedicle for secondary reductions differed significantly between geographic regions (p<0.001). The majority of respondents reported to use a superior or supero-medial pedicle (34.8% and 32.2%, respectively). Residual analysis revealed a strong association between the use of an inferior pedicle and procedures performed in North America. CONCLUSIONS Secondary breast reduction is challenging and there remains international disparity with regard to pedicle choice for secondary procedures. Studies investigating outcome when the primary pedicle is unknown are scarce and provide incoherent recommendations. High-quality data is needed to provide evidence-based practice guidelines. 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.