Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 23, 2026
Endoscopic Bilateral Nipple-sparing Mastectomy via a Single Axillary Incision with Immediate Pre-pectoral Implant-based Breast Reconstruction
Published on: May 17, 2024
Evidence-based evaluation technique to assess augmentation mammaplasty results: a simple method to objectively
Marco Mazzocchi1, Luca Andrea Dessy1, Nefer Fallico2
1Dr Mazzocchi is an assistant professor and Dr Alfano is head professor in the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Perugia, ItalyDr Dessy is a consultant, Dr Fallico is a resident, and Dr Scuderi is Head Professor in the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy.
Background:
Despite the great variety of mammaplasty techniques, outcome assessment remains a challenging issue.
Objectives:
The authors devised an objective method to evaluate mammary symmetry based on statistical analysis of objective manual breast measurements and validated the method by applying it to results of a randomized controlled trial on the correction of breast asymmetry.
Methods:
Sixty consecutive patients with hypoplastic breasts and small-volume asymmetry were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. One group received a fixed-volume implant in 1 breast and an adjustable-volume implant in the other. The other group received 2 fixed-volume implants of different sizes. The differences in specific breast and chest measurements, obtained before surgery and during follow-up, were analyzed statistically with the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results:
Correction of the asymmetry resulted in the reduction of the differences between left and right values for each specific breast measurement. Placement of an adjustable implant on 1 side yielded better symmetry than placement of 2 fixed-volume prostheses of different sizes. Patient and physician satisfaction was high for both groups.
Conclusions:
This objective analysis of clinical parameters enables comparing results for different patients in large clinical trials and for the same patient at different follow-up periods.
Level Of Evidence:
3.
