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