Volume 15, Issue 1 (2026)
WJPS 2026, 15(1): 31-36 |
Back to browse issues page
Adrian Ranferi Gil-Rabanales *1 
, Victor Hugo Garzón-Ortega2 , Daniela Téllez-Palacios1 , Fernando Fernández Varela-Gómez , Hernando Alberto Vázquez-Sánchez1 , Priscila Alejandra Thebar-Moreno
, Victor Hugo Garzón-Ortega2 , Daniela Téllez-Palacios1 , Fernando Fernández Varela-Gómez , Hernando Alberto Vázquez-Sánchez1 , Priscila Alejandra Thebar-Moreno
1- 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital General “Dr. Manuel Gea González”, Mexico City, Mexico
2- 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital General “Dr. Manuel Gea González”, Mexico City, Mexico & 2. Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
2- 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital General “Dr. Manuel Gea González”, Mexico City, Mexico & 2. Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico
Abstract: (366 Views)
Background: Breast hypertrophy significantly impairs quality of life, causing musculoskeletal pain, poor posture, and psychological distress, including reduced self-esteem. Reduction mammoplasty offers a surgical approach to mitigate these challenges. We evaluated patient satisfaction with aesthetic and functional outcomes following the procedure at a specialized referral center.
Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 16 patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty for gigantomastia in the Hospital General “Dr. Manuel Gea González” Mexico City, Mexico from January 1, 2022, to July 31, 2024. Data from medical records included demographics (age, BMI), surgical indications, resected tissue weight, and BREAST-Q responses assessing satisfaction with breast appearance, surgical outcomes, and psychosocial, physical, and sexual well-being.
Results: Patients had a mean age of 46.5 years, with 43.7% classified as obese. Physical discomfort was the primary surgical indication (62.5%), and 62.5% had 501–1000 g of tissue resected. High satisfaction was reported for surgical outcomes (87.5%) and physical well-being (93.7%), yet dissatisfaction was notable with breast appearance (56.2%), psychosocial well-being (100%), and sexual well-being (81.2%). Satisfaction with the surgeon was 87.5%, and with other staff, 62.5%.
Conclusion: Reduction mammoplasty effectively improves physical health and surgical satisfaction; however, persistent dissatisfaction with aesthetic and psychosocial outcomes highlights the need for enhanced preoperative counseling. Tailored discussions could better align patient expectations with achievable results, improving overall care.
Keywords: Gigantomastia, Reduction mammoplasty, BREAST-Q, Patient satisfaction, Quality of life, Aesthetic outcomes
References
1. Sigurdson L, Mykhalovskiy E, Kirkland SA, Pallen A. Symptoms and Related Severity Experienced by Women with Breast Hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119(2):481-6. [DOI:10.1097/01.prs.0000246407.87267.46]
2. Kerrigan CL, Collins ED, Striplin D, et al. The Health Burden of Breast Hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108(6):1591-9. [DOI:10.1097/00006534-200111000-00024]
3. Perdikis G, Dillingham C, Boukovalas S, et al. American Society of Plastic Surgeons Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline Revision: Reduction Mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022; 149(3):392e-409e. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008860]
4. Hammond DC, Loffredo M. Breast Reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129(5):829e-839e. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824a2efc]
5. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, et al. Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Breast Surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 124(2):345-353. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807]
6. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: Further Validation in Independent Clinical Samples. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 129(2):293-302. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec6b]
7. Liao CD, Xia J, Wang K, et al. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient Factors on BREAST-Q Outcomes After Reduction Mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 2023;90(6S Suppl 5):S667-S673. [DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003471]
8. Choong WL, Andrew RE, Hogg FJ, et al. Age and Cancer Treatment Factors Influence Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Therapeutic Mammoplasty and Contralateral Symmetrisation for the Treatment of Breast Cancer. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021;74(10):2557-2564. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.031]
9. Ngaage LM, Bai J, Gebran S, et al. A 12-Year Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes After Reduction Mammoplasty in Patients with High Body Mass Index. Medicine 2019;98(25):e16055. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000016055]
10. Yao A, LaFontaine S, Sultan SM, et al. Do Larger Reductions Yield Larger Returns? Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Function of Specimen Weight in Bilateral Reduction Mammoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021;74(10):2537-2549. [DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.032]
11. Park JB, Adebagbo OD, Rahmani B, et al. BREAST-Q Analysis of Reduction Mammaplasty: Do Postoperative Complications of Breast Reduction Surgery Negatively Affect Patient Satisfaction? Aesthet Surg J 2024;44(12):NP852-NP861. [DOI:10.1093/asj/sjae168]
12. Shammas RL, Fish LJ, Sergesketter AR, et al. Dissatisfaction After Post-Mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Mixed-Methods Study. Ann Surg Oncol 2022;29(2):1109-1119. [DOI:10.1245/s10434-021-10720-9]
13. Lewis HC, Hart AL, Fobare A, Styblo TM, Losken A. Preoperative Body Image Factors Are Associated With Complications After Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2022;149(3):568-577. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008825]
14. Ozbey R, Cansel N, Firat C, Baydemir MB. Factors Affecting Patient Satisfaction in Breast Reduction Surgeries: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Aesthet Plast Surg 2021;45(6):2658-2664. [DOI:10.1007/s00266-021-02354-9]
15. Krucoff KB, Carlson AR, Shammas RL, et al. Breast-Related Quality of Life in Young Reduction Mammaplasty Patients: A Long-Term Follow-Up Using the BREAST-Q. Plas Reconstr Surg 2019;144(5):743e-750e. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006117]
16. Davis MJ, Roy MG, Monson LA. Analysis of Adolescent Patient Satisfaction and Well-Being Following Reduction Mammaplasty Using the BREAST-Q Survey. J Pediatr Surg 2022;57(3):538-543. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2021.06.008]
17. Shamsunder MG, Polanco TO, McCarthy CM, et al. Understanding Preoperative Breast Satisfaction Among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: BREAST-Q Insights. Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;148(6):891e-902e. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000008521]
18. Crittenden TA, Watson DI, Ratcliffe J, Griffin PA, Dean NR. Outcomes of Breast Reduction Surgery Using the BREAST-Q: A Prospective Study and Comparison with Normative Data. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144(5):1034-1044. [DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006114]
19. Liao CD, Xia J, Zhao K, et al. Are Surgical Approaches Correlated With BREAST-Q Score Improvements After Reduction Mammoplasty? A Systematic Review. Ann Plast Surg 2023;90(6S Suppl 5):S659-S666. [DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003445]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |