Reply: A Comparison of Superomedial versus Inferior Pedicle Reduction Mammaplasty Using Three-Dimensional Analysis
To verify our study outcomes, we performed a separate analysis where the cohorts were matched based on the volume of tissue resected (superomedial pedicle, 495 cc; inferior pedicle, 555 cc; p = 0.08). This analysis contained nine patients in each cohort, and revealed similar results, including increased sternal notch–to-nipple distance (superomedial pedicle, 21.4 cm; inferior pedicle, 23.3 cm; p = 0.01) and increased medial pole fullness (superomedial pedicle, 36.3 percent; inferior pedicle, 47.0 percent; p < 0.01) in the inferior pedicle cohort at the late postoperative period. In addition, no difference was found in superior pole volume at the late postoperative period (superomedial pedicle, 59.6 percent; inferior pedicle, 58.6 percent; p = 0.61). As such, it appears the main study outcomes are similar regardless of whether the cohorts are matched based on postoperative breast size or weight of tissue resected.
We are aware of the many contributions of other authors who have compared these techniques using traditional mammometrics and two-dimensional photography; however, we could not discuss these articles in the Letter format. We hope our observations may offer some insights when considering various pedicle techniques for reduction mammaplasty.