Summary The authors of this review present a comprehensive assessment of the techniques and indications in the treatment of the long upper lip. Setting aside the maxillofacial malformations, the review is focused on senescence as the most frequent etiology. A graphical reminder of the anatomical entities and of the upper lip proportions allows optimal preoperative planning. All current treatment options, from fillers to surgical excision and dermabrasion, are reviewed and summarized in order to provide an overview of each technique's expected results and contraindications.

Background: Among breast reduction mammoplasty, the inferior pedicle-based (IFP) technique is considered the most performed by plastic surgeons. A growing interest for the supero-medial based pedicle (SMP) mammoplasty technique has been documented in literature and clinical practice. However, no real evidence exists on the superiority of one technique over another.Methods: This study represents a retrospective multimodal analysis, using a prospectively maintained database, comparing wise pattern breast reduction techniques (IFP vs. SMP) over a 24-month follow-up.From January 2015 to July 2017, all patients undergoing wise pattern bilateral reduction mammoplasty, using either an IFP or a SMP technique, were included in the study and divided in two groups. Preoperative breast measurements included sternal notch-to-nipple distance (SN-N), infra-mammary fold to inferior border of Nipple Areolar Complex (NAC) distance length and ptosis. The same measurements were recorded at 2 weeks, 6 months and 24 months post-op. Complications were recorded and aesthetic outcomes were evaluated.Results: A total of 58 patients were included in the study, among which 36 (62%) were treated with a SMP technique and 22 (38%) with an IFP technique. At the 24-month follow-up timepoint, the SN-N distance was significantly shorter (*P<0.05) in the SMP group, with a significantly smaller elongation of the lower pole arc (29.5% increase in length in the SMP group and 40.9% in the IFP group). Aesthetic result gave significantly higher mean VAS score for SMP patients compared to IFP patients. Conclusions:The SMP technique provides stable and satisfactory results in term of breast shape, overcoming some of the major concerns related to the use of an IFP technique (lower pole elongation and ptosis recurrence), maintaining a superimposable complication rate.

Background: Mastopexy is one of the most performed cosmetic surgery procedures in the United States. Despite the numerous mastopexy techniques that were published in the past decades, preventing pseudoptosis to ensure longer lasting results remains the principal challenge. Objectives: This paper describes a new mastopexy technique developed for moderate to severe ptosis/pseudoptosis associated with upper pole deflation. Considering some of the commonest risk factors generally considered predictive of worse outcomes (massive weight loss, multiple pregnancies, skin quality, smoking, age), we aimed to assess whether this technique could be beneficial in the support of the desired breast shape over time. Methods: Twelve patients, all featuring 1 or more of the abovementioned preoperative risk factors, were operated on by the same senior surgeon with the hammock mastopexy technique using dermal flaps as a support for the glandular reshaping (6 bilateral mastopexies and 6 unilateral mastopexies for contralateral symmetrization after breast reconstruction). Patients’ characteristics, such as smoking, weight loss, or multiparity with consequent inelastic skin, age, and lengthy nipple–areola complex lift, were considered as independent risk factors for ptosis recurrence and bottoming out. Patients were divided into 3 subgroups according to the number of their risk factors. Aesthetic results were assessed at 12 months postoperatively. Changes in postoperative were assessed for each patient by breast measurements and a superposition of the standardized breast photographs. Long-term outcomes were compared with a control group of 6 patients who benefited from mastopexy without “hammock technique.” Results: Satisfactory maintenance of shape and stable nipple–areola complex position was seen at 12 months regardless of the number of risk factors. However, a statistically significant difference was found in lower pole lengthening between patients with more than 3 risk factors compared to other groups. Aesthetic measurement results were consistent between the patient and surgeon reporting a satisfying cosmetic result, regardless of the number of risk factors. In the control group, we found a significant increase in breast lower pole measurements at 12 months when compared with the hammock group. Conclusions: This mastopexy technique improves projection and reinforces the lower pole support with lateral and medial dermal flaps. The technique is safe and reliable and provides easily reproducible results for patients with risk factors for postoperative pseudoptosis.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.