The ???Periwinkleshell??? Principle in the Treatment of the Small Ptotic Breast

Gillies, Harold; Marino, Hector

doi:10.1097/00006534-195801000-00001

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was not until the mid-twentieth century when there were more monumental breakthroughs. In 1958, Sir Harold Gillies and Hector Marino introduced a technique for small ptotic breasts where the tissue would undergo ''periwinkleshell'' rotation and internal fixation [102]. Paule Regnault and Mario Gonzales-Ulloa later combined mastopexy with augmentation to simultaneously tackle ptosis and hypoplasia [87,103].…”

Section: The Origins and Evolution Of Mastopexymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Breast Reconstruction: A Historical Perspective

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plastic surgeons have been performing operations to improve the aesthetic aspect of the breast for centuries. Throughout ancient times, great controversy produced many theories of how breast cancer occurred and the best treatment. Because of beliefs that closure of mastectomy sites could conceal tumor recurrence, breast reconstruction did not gain wide acceptance until the mid-1900s. Today, plastic surgeons have a variety of techniques to reconstruct the breast. The first autologous muscle flap for breast reconstruction was the latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap, described in 1896 by Iginio Tansini. The introduction of Carl Hartrampf's transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap and Robert J. Allen's deep inferior epigastric perforator flap have also provided excellent reconstructive options. With regard to augmentation, Vincenz Czerny attempted to enhance a woman's breast in 1895 with implantation of a lumbar lipoma. Soon after, surgeons used paraffin injections and polyvinylic alcohol sponge implantation, which yielded disastrous results. In 1961, Thomas Cronin and Frank Gerow promoted the first silicone implant, paving the way for today's silicone and saline prototypes. Although reduction mammaplasty techniques had originated centuries earlier than mastopexy methods, the advancements of both have largely paralleled one another. In 1949, the Wise pattern was introduced to preoperatively plan safer and predictable outcomes in breast reductions. Efforts to minimize scars were achieved with Claude Lassus' introduction and Madeleine Lejour's subsequent modification of the vertical scar mammaplasty. In hopes of fostering an understanding of current post-mastectomy procedures and instilling passion for innovating future techniques, we provide a near-complete, surgically focused historical account of the primary contributors to breast reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: The Origins and Evolution Of Mastopexymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Breast Reconstruction: A Historical Perspective

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Ten articles included lateral photographs that were suitable for analysis. [2][3][4]7,9,13,17,[19][20][21] The mean patient age was 30 years, follow-up time 2.1 years, and resection weight 516 g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-three manuscripts describing a central mound dissection were identified, 2–24 beginning with a publication by Bames in 1950. 5 No randomized trials or prospective studies have been published.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review and Measurement Study of the Central Mound Pedicle for Breast Reduction

Swanson¹

2021

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The central mound approach to breast reduction has been the subject of recent interest in the literature. However, quantitative evaluation using measurements is lacking. This review was undertaken to objectively evaluate changes in breast dimensions, and to compare the results to a popular alternative method, vertical mammaplasty. Methods: An electronic search was performed using PubMed to identify all publications endorsing the central mound technique. Published lateral photographs were matched for size and orientation, with computer assistance. Measurements included breast projection, upper pole projection, lower pole level, breast mound elevation, nipple level, and breast parenchymal ratio. Results were compared with published measurement data for the vertical technique. Results: Twenty-three manuscripts were identified. Ten included photographs suitable for analysis. On average, breast projection decreased 1.1 cm after central mound breast reduction ( P < 0.05). Upper pole projection dropped 0.4 cm (not significant). The lower pole level was raised 2.6 cm ( P < 0.05). The nipple level was over-elevated 0.6 cm, on average. The breast parenchymal ratio increased by 0.54. A central mound dissection decreased breast projection. In contrast, publications using a vertical breast reduction demonstrated maintenance of upper pole and breast projection and a modest (<1 cm) increase. Conclusions: For each measurement comparison, the vertical method outperforms the central mound. Because of its anatomy and geometry, measurements show that the vertical method for breast reduction is more favorable than a central mound dissection. This method can also be used safely for secondary breast reductions.

show abstract

A Complete History of Breast Reconstruction

Champaneria

2016

Breast Reconstruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ???Periwinkleshell??? Principle in the Treatment of the Small Ptotic Breast

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

The Evolution of Breast Reconstruction: A Historical Perspective

The Evolution of Breast Reconstruction: A Historical Perspective

A Review and Measurement Study of the Central Mound Pedicle for Breast Reduction

A Complete History of Breast Reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About