S. No | Author and Year | Method and treatment | Patients and duration | Duration | Outcomes |
1 | Nicholson et al., 2018 | Modified central mound pedicle for reducing breast | 116 patients underwent bilateral reduction of breast | 7 years | Pseudoptosis development is delayed for some patients |
2 | Bayramicli, 2012 | Novel septum-based pedicle (central pillar) was developed | 62 patients carried out bilateral reduction | 26.5 months | Central pillar technique is best substitute for glandular breasts among young patients |
3 | Wolter et al., 2021 | Double-unit technique with inverted-T incision and superomedio-central pedicle | 831 reduction mammaplasties are performed among 630 patients | 7 years | Proposed technique is effective for achieving reduction of volume |
4 | Movassaghi et al., 2006 | central-inferior pedicle using low mammaplasty with horizontal scar | 239 patients | 6 years | BMRT (Boston Modification of Robertson technique) is reliable and safe method for reducing mammaplasty when there is significant ptosis and macromastia |
5 | Wechselberger et al., 2001 | Estimate the amount of resected tissue in breast has impact on sensitivity of breast post inferior pedicle mammaplasty | 15 patients | From April 1999 to January 2000 | Touch sensitivity have been increased for all patients till 6 months post-surgery |
6 | Shod, 2021 | Inferior pedicle for bilateral mammoplasty for reduction with inverted T-procedure | 23 patients | 3 years | Reduction mammaplasty enhanced women quality of life |
7 | Al-Boudi and Alhassanieh, 2021 | Inferior pedicle technique | 32 patients | From January 2018 to Dec 2020 | Suspension of inferior pedicle with the help of crossed dermal flaps prevent bottoming out, do not include alloplastic materials or allogenic materials |
8 | Weichman et al., 2014 | Central mound technique | 13 patients | 5 years | Proposed technique gives reproducible and reliable outcomes and have to consider patients with asymmetry or macromastia and irradiation history |