Search

Background: A reduced nipple projection is the main reason for scarce satisfaction in nipple-areola complex reconstruction [9, 6] and many techniques have been proposed to sustain the reconstructed nipple. Method: 90 nipples in 70 patients were reconstructed either using a little wedge from labia minora (LMW) (70) or with nipple sharing (NS) (20). Two months after reconstruction, each reconstructed nipple was injected with DermaLive®. A second and a third injection were performed two and five months later. The injected volume was trimmed depending on the desired projection. Nipple projection was measured at the moment of implant, before and after each injection and six and twelve months after the last injection. Results: nipple projection was fully satisfactory in all cases and it was comparable to the contralateral nipple. Average nipple projection at six months was 5.8 mm in LMW patients, and 3.8 mm in NS ones (p

Breast reconstruction is fully justified only from an aesthetical perspective. A reconstructed breast, therefore, should be as aesthetically natural and similar to the contralateral one as possible, even if this means reproducing some little defects. The breast's profile (projection, ptosis, sulcus location, and superficial unevenness), symmetry, areola, and nipple are the characterizing aesthetic factors. The authors present their experience in prosthetic breast reconstruction seen with an aesthetic eye and an artistic touch, illustrating personal tips and technical adjustments: use of anatomical prostheses, pectoralis muscle treatment, sulcus stabilization or reconstruction, superficial irregularities correction, and nipple-areola complex reconstruction. Results are evaluated by both the surgeon and the patient using a score system, validating the method.

The tuberous breast syndrome is the result of a complex series of defects with various degrees of expression. However, much confusion has been generated in the literature by the use of often inadequate terminology, which is partly the cause of multiplicity of managements being proposed that mainly aim to correct the major defect and not the entire syndrome. The surgical approach adopted by our group stems from the improvement of classic techniques, consisting essentially of a combination of periareolar mastopexis, additive mastoplasty, and gland base enlargement by cross incision. Our results were fully satisfying both aesthetically and functionally. We achieved a correct shape, resolved ptosys and reduced areolas with no double-fold effect, and attained good symmetry in more complex unilateral cases.