Corrado Tinterri, Andrea Lisa, Federico Barbera, Barbara Catania, Valeria Bandi, Valeriano Vinci, Silvia Giannasi, Francesco Klinger, Andrea Battistini, Micol Giaccone, Fabio Caviggioli, Alessandra Veronesi, Marco Klinger, Alberto Testori, Guido Cornegliani, Luca Maione, and Mattia Siliprandi
The breast is one of the leading organs treated by plastic surgeons for many purposes, such as correction of malformations (breast asymmetries, stenotic and tuberous breasts, Poland syndrome, etc), postoncological reconstruction (breast reconstruction after mastectomy or lumpectomy) and aesthetic/degenerative corrections (hypotrophy, hypertrophy, age-related problems, and postsurgical deformities). The surgical goals of these procedures are as follows: new pleasant breast cone; nipple–areola complex (NAC) survival and correct positioning at the centre of the breast cone; stable results throughout time; minimal scars. The desire to correct the shape, ptosis, hypo/hypertrophy, and any type of breast malformation using periareolar approach is long-standing. Hollander1 pioneered a technique to lift up the areola with skin excision in the supra-areolar area (“crescent technique”). However, it was Hinderer2 who first described the “doughnut mastopexy” and periareolar dermopexy with retromammary mastopexy (only the periareolar epidermis was removed and not full-thickness skin). These techniques were improved by Andrews3 for small volume breast reduction and Bartels4 for mastopexy in breast augmentation. Erol5 adopted a periareolar breast reshaping by leaving a central pedicle, undermining the superficial fascia, with no detachment of the gland from the muscle. A significant improvement for the evolution of the periareolar technique was the introduction of the purse-string (or round-block suture) by Peled,6 even though Benelli7,8 introduced the modern concept of round-block suture for the correction of small to moderate ptosis, reduction of the areolar diameter, and closure of the two periareolar circles in a concentric fashion. Peixoto,9 Felicio,10 Toledo,11 Goes,12 Spear,13 Ersek,14 Martins,15 and Hinderer16 added interesting contributes by using different breast remodeling and resection. Wilkinson17 proposed the “double Benelli stitch.” Robles18 introduced the concept of periareolar suture with a straight needle and an areolar sizer. Bustos19 suggested the use of a silicone sheet around the gland, anchoring it to the anterior pectoralis muscle fascia for better stabilization, followed by Goes,20 who performed a periareolar access with a polyglactine or mixed mesh as a support. Hammond21,22 described the interlocked suture with particular inferior pedicle. Our group made a significant contribution in 2016, extending the periareolar approach to all breast resections in oncoplastic surgery,23 and subsequently for the treatment of stenotic and tuberous breast.24,25 Despite all the valuable contributions described above, the periareolar approach still presents three main problems: late widening of the areolar diameter due to suture tension and hypertrophic/wide scars; flattening of the breast cone; postoperative ptosis relapse. Today these three issues have almost been solved. The purpose of the present article is to show how the periareolar approach, with a good patient selection, can be applied to different situations, leading to excellent results. Exceptions of the described technique are severe hypertrophies/ptosis or inelastic skin, where a T-inverted or L-scar is preferred. On the basis of previous works and the most recent developments, we think that the treatment of multiple mammary conditions with the periareolar approach can now be judged satisfying.