Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Lejour Breast Reduction

  • Author: Antonio Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, MD; Chief Editor: James Neal Long, MD, FACS  more...
 
Updated: Feb 23, 2016
 

Background

Breast reduction is one of the most common procedures performed by plastic surgeons in North America, South America, and Europe.[1] Breast reduction is the surgical treatment of macromastia, a condition that is defined by the presence of enlarged and heavy breasts.

The weight and size of the breast can be reduced using various surgical techniques. Two main technical aspects have to be considered when detailing surgical options for reduction mammaplasty. One aspect is the pattern of the skin incision/excision used to gain access to the breast parenchyma to be removed. These skin incisions, and the skin area that is to be excised, ultimately describe the location and length of the final scars. The second aspect to be considered is the area/pedicle of breast parenchyma to be left in the patient after the glandular excision is complete. The pedicle selected by the surgeon will have a discrete vascular and nerve supply and is very important in determining final breast shape, since each pedicle technique has known and differing strengths and weaknesses. See the images below.

Preoperative view, Lejour reduction mammaplasty. Preoperative view, Lejour reduction mammaplasty.
Postoperative view, 400-g Lejour reduction perform Postoperative view, 400-g Lejour reduction performed by Dr Glynn Bolitho, San Diego, Calif.
Next

History of the Procedure

Diverse methods of skin incision and excision existed in the early reports of breast reduction. Some of them were improvised during the surgery, others were planned based on empiric knowledge, and a few followed complicated geometric calculations. In 1956, Robert Wise published on his experience with a refined pattern that he had previously designed in the form of a key-hole.[2] The Wise pattern has been the workhorse for skin incision for breast reduction for several decades. It leaves an anchor-shaped scar in a periareolar circle, a vertical scar in the midline of the inferior mammary hemisphere, and a curvilinear scar along the inframammary fold that follows the curved shape of the inferior pole of the breast.

In 1972, Paul McKissock modified Wise's technique by increasing the length of the vertical limbs of the design to try to compensate for the flat lower pole that was being achieved.[3] It is now recognized that McKissock’s technique tends to result in the opposite effect, which is a bottoming-out and is not very well tolerated by patients and surgeons.

To date, the Wise pattern remains the most common method of skin excision performed in the United States, although current trends show surgeons favoring other methods that have been designed with the purposes of shortening and hiding the scar. In South America and Europe, such methods have been very well developed over the years and represent the most common method of skin incision for breast reduction. Among these shorter-scars techniques, the mosque dome pattern of skin incision has gained greatest acceptance. It eliminates the lower curvilinear scar seen with the use of the Wise pattern, leaving only a periareolar scar and a vertical scar along the midline of the lower hemisphere of the breast. For this reason, the technique has been called vertical scar, and breast reductions using this pattern of skin incision are denominated vertical reduction mammaplasties.

The vertical scar incision pattern was originally designed by Claude Lassus in 1964 and reported in 1970, with the particularity that the inferior portion of the vertical scar ended up extending below the inframammary fold.[4] Lassus corrected this by adding a small horizontal scar along the inframammary fold.[5] Later on, he realized that the small horizontal scar ended up migrating up toward the lower hemisphere of the breast. He subsequently redefined his pattern of skin excision until achieving one that left only a vertical scar above the inframammary fold.[6] This is the skin incision that is used in the technique described by Lejour.

The advantages of this pattern of skin incision are that it leaves no scar along the inframammary fold and it reduces the risk of skin edge necrosis at the inferior aspect of the closure, where tension is greatest and skin flap vascular inflow occurs over the longest distance from its source. (Skin edge necrosis was a particular risk at the junction of the inverted T incision of the Wise pattern technique).

With regard to the pattern of glandular resection, the different techniques used in breast reduction are identified by the segment of the breast that is left unresected, which becomes the structure and support of the new breast. This "pedicle" also contains the vascular supply that will nourish the breast mound, including the nipple-areola complex. Various techniques include superior, superomedial, medial, inferior, lateral and central pedicles. Bipedicle techniques, which include either superior and inferior or lateral and medial aspects of the breast, are also used.

For information on other breast reduction techniques, see Medscape Reference articles Central Pedicle Breast Reduction, Inferior Pedicle Breast Reduction, Moufarrège Total Posterior Pedicle Breast Reduction, Simplified Vertical Breast Reduction, Superior Pedicle Breast Reduction, and Vertical Bipedicle Breast Reduction.

Each technique has advantages and disadvantages. The superior pedicle method (which involves the resection of the medial, lateral, and inferior portions of the breast parenchyma) was originally described by Daniel Weiner in 1973.[7] Initially, it gained more popularity in Europe than in North and South America. It was thought to put at risk the sensation of the nipple-areola complex because of the belief that it transected the lateral branches of the fourth intercostal nerve. The sensory branches to the nipple-areola complex are now known to run deep at the level of the chest wall and perforate superficially through the breast parenchyma to reach to nipple areola complex. For this reason, keeping parenchymatous resections just above the level of the chest wall preserves the nerve supply to the nipple-areola complex and, thus, its sensation.

Another reason for which this method of parenchyma resection was not widely approved was the thinking that the vascular pedicle may get kinked or compressed while folding the dermoglandular portion of the breast over to inset the areola up on its new location. Currently, good evidence exists supporting the knowledge that the breast is adequately supplied by the superior dermoglandular pedicle that results as a consequence of this pattern of parenchyma resection.

For this reason, trends exist in North America and South America toward performing superior pedicle techniques of breast reduction more often than in the past.[8] This is the pattern of resection used in the Lejour technique. Its advantages are that it preserves the area that is less prone to undergo further ptosis secondary to downward pulling action of gravity, as well as maintaining fullness in the upper pole of the breast while allowing for small, medium, and large resections.

In 1994, Madeleine Lejour reported on 153 reduction mammaplasties using this technique in 79 patients.[9] Later, she updated her experience on 324 reductions performed in 167 patients.[10] Several studies on the use of this technique have been published since.

Previous
Next

Presentation

Patients with macromastia present to the clinic with enlarged breasts that tend to be ptotic and that cause chest, neck, back and shoulder pain; difficulty performing deep inspirations; and the inability to fit into proper clothing. Patients may show shoulder indentations from the brassiere and inframammary intertrigo.

A complete medical history has to be obtained, including age, information on childbearing and breastfeeding, future pregnancy and nursing plans, smoking history, concomitant diseases, history of breast diseases and surgery, family history of breast cancer, medication allergies, and tendency to bleed.

Physical examination should focus on body mass index, vital signs, breast masses, inframammary intertrigo, degree of breast enlargement and ptosis, skin lesions, and nipple sensation and discharge.

Previous
Next

Indications

Reduction mammaplasty is the surgical treatment of macromastia, a condition in which heavy and enlarged breasts may cause chest, neck, back and shoulder pain; inframammary intertrigo; difficulty performing deep inspirations; and the inability to fit into proper clothing.

Multiple breast reduction techniques exist. The Lejour technique consists of a vertical reduction based on a superior pedicle and includes breast liposuction and wide lower skin undermining. It can be performed in patients who require small or large reductions, even in patients who have gigantomastia (excess of breast tissue of more than 1000 g per side).[11]

Previous
Next

Relevant Anatomy

The breast has an abundant blood supply that consists of perforators from the internal mammary artery (medially and inferiorly), branches from the thoracoacromial and thoracodorsal arteries (superiorly), and branches from the lateral thoracic artery and intercostal perforators (laterally). Also, multiple dermal and subdermal plexus are present, with a rich periareolar plexus.

The sensory nerve supply to the breast comes from lateral and anterior cutaneous branches of the second through sixth intercostal nerves. The nipple is supplied primarily by the fourth intercostal nerve, with contributions from the lateral third and fifth intercostal nerves and from the anterior second through fifth cutaneous nerves.

Breast shape varies among patients, but knowing and understanding the anatomy of the breast ensures safe surgical planning. For more information about the relevant anatomy, see Breast Anatomy.

Previous
Next

Contraindications

Contraindications for reduction mammaplasty include current or recent lactation, presence of unevaluated breast masses or suspicious microcalcifications, increased surgical risk from systemic illnesses, inability to understand the limitations of the procedure, and inability to accept the possible complications of the procedure.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Antonio Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, MD Staff Physician, Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Univesity of Alabama, Birmingham

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Jorge I de la Torre, MD, FACS Professor of Surgery and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Chief, Division of Plastic Surgery, Residency Program Director, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Director, Center for Advanced Surgical Aesthetics

Jorge I de la Torre, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Burn Association, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery, Association for Academic Surgery, Medical Association of the State of Alabama

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

James Neal Long, MD, FACS Founder of Magnolia Plastic Surgery; Former Associate Professor of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Children's Hospital and Kirklin Clinics, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Section Chief of Plastic, Reconstructive, Hand, and Microsurgery, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center

James Neal Long, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Plastic Surgery Research Council, Sigma Xi, Southeastern Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, Southeastern Surgical Congress

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Pankaj Tiwari, MD Assistant Professor, Division of Plastic Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The authors and editors of Medscape Reference gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous author James F Thornton, MD, to the development and writing of this article.

References
  1. Wong C, Vucovich M, Rohrich R. Mastopexy and reduction mammoplasty pedicles and skin resection patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2014 Aug. 2 (8):e202. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  2. Wise RJ. A preliminary report on a method of planning the mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1956 May. 17(5):367-75. [Medline].

  3. McKissock PK. Reduction mammaplasty with a vertical dermal flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972 Mar. 49(3):245-52. [Medline].

  4. Lassus C. A technique for breast reduction. Int Surg. 1970 Jan. 53(1):69-72. [Medline].

  5. Lassus C. An "all-season" mammoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1986. 10(1):9-15. [Medline].

  6. Lassus C. Breast reduction: evolution of a technique--a single vertical scar. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1987. 11(2):107-12. [Medline].

  7. Weiner DL, Aiache AE, Silver L, Tittiranonda T. A single dermal pedicle for nipple transposition in subcutaneous mastectomy, reduction mammaplasty, or mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973 Feb. 51(2):115-20. [Medline].

  8. Kim P, Kim KK, Casas LA. Superior pedicle autoaugmentation mastopexy: a review of 34 consecutive patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2010 Mar. 30(2):201-10. [Medline].

  9. Lejour M. Vertical mammaplasty and liposuction of the breast. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994 Jul. 94(1):100-14. [Medline].

  10. Lejour M. Vertical mammaplasty: early complications after 250 personal consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Sep. 104(3):764-70. [Medline].

  11. Hofmann AK, Wuestner-Hofmann MC, Bassetto F, Scarpa C, Mazzoleni F. Breast reduction: modified "Lejour technique" in 500 large breasts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Oct. 120(5):1095-104; discussion 1105-7. [Medline].

  12. Shortt R, Cooper MJ, Farrokhyar F, et al. Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in breast reduction surgery. Can J Plast Surg. 2014 Summer. 22(2):91-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  13. Kakagia D, Fragia K, Grekou A, Tsoutsos D. Reduction mammaplasty specimens and occult breast carcinomas. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2005 Feb. 31(1):19-21. [Medline].

  14. Pitanguy I, Torres E, Salgado F, Pires Viana GA. Breast pathology and reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Mar. 115(3):729-34; discussion 735. [Medline].

  15. de Groot RM, Kingma-Vegter F, Bakker XR. [Occult breast cancer discovered following breast reduction.]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009. 153:[Medline].

  16. Azzam C, De Mey A. Vertical scar mammaplasty in gigantomastia: retrospective study of 115 patients treated using the modified lejour technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007 May-Jun. 31(3):294-8. [Medline].

  17. Collis N, McGuiness CM, Batchelor AG. Drainage in breast reduction surgery: a prospective randomised intra-patient trail. Br J Plast Surg. 2005 Apr. 58(3):286-9. [Medline].

  18. Khan SM, Smeulders MJ, Van der Horst CM. Wound drainage after plastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 21. 10:CD007258. [Medline].

  19. Cunningham BL, Gear AJ, Kerrigan CL, Collins ED. Analysis of breast reduction complications derived from the BRAVO study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 May. 115(6):1597-604. [Medline].

  20. Schumacher HH. Breast reduction and smoking. Ann Plast Surg. 2005 Feb. 54(2):117-9. [Medline].

  21. O'Blenes CA, Delbridge CL, Miller BJ, Pantelis A, Morris SF. Prospective study of outcomes after reduction mammaplasty: long-term follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Feb. 117(2):351-8. [Medline].

  22. Miller BJ, Morris SF, Sigurdson LL, Bendor-Samuel RL, Brennan M, Davis G, et al. Prospective study of outcomes after reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005 Apr. 115(4):1025-31; discussion 1032-3. [Medline].

  23. Mello AA, Domingos NA, Miyazaki MC. Improvement in Quality of Life and Self-Esteem After Breast Reduction Surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009 Sep 19. [Medline].

  24. Iwuagwu OC, Stanley PW, Platt AJ, Drew PJ, Walker LG. Effects of bilateral breast reduction on anxiety and depression: results of a prospective randomised trial. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2006. 40(1):19-23. [Medline].

  25. Cherchel A, Azzam C, De Mey A. Breastfeeding after vertical reduction mammaplasty using a superior pedicle. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007. 60(5):465-70. [Medline].

  26. Heine N, Eisenmann-Klein M, Prantl L. Gigantomasty: treatment with a short vertical scar. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 Jan. 32(1):41-7. [Medline].

  27. Lista F, Ahmad J. Vertical scar reduction mammaplasty: a 15-year experience including a review of 250 consecutive cases. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006 Jun. 117(7):2152-65; discussion 2166-9. [Medline].

  28. Aufricht G. Mammaplasty for pendulous breasts; empiric and geometric planning. Plast Reconstr Surg (1946). 1949 Jan. 4(1):13-29. [Medline].

  29. Kreithen J, Caffee H, Rosenberg J, Chin G, Clayman M, Lawson M, et al. A comparison of the LeJour and Wise pattern methods of breast reduction. Ann Plast Surg. 2005 Mar. 54(3):236-41; discussion 241-2. [Medline].

 
Previous
Next
 
Preoperative markings that demonstrate superior periareolar pedicle and inferior skin/parenchymal resection margins.
Demonstration of partial inset of superior pedicle and development of breast mound from medial and lateral pillars.
Immediate postoperative appearance, demonstrating exaggerated upper pole fullness, downward pointing nipple, and bunched skin on the lower pole of the breast.
Preoperative view, Lejour reduction mammaplasty.
Preoperative view, lateral, Lejour reduction mammaplasty.
Postoperative view, 400-g Lejour reduction performed by Dr Glynn Bolitho, San Diego, Calif.
Postoperative view, lateral, Lejour reduction mammaplasty.
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.