Sisters But Not Twins: A Critical Appraisal of Long-Term Results in Breast Asymmetry Correction.

[BACKGROUND] Breast asymmetry is a common disorder, which can lead to significant emotional distress. Despite this, there is currently no widely accepted approach for managing this prevalent condition. Due to the high dimorphism of the breast, despite a satisfactory result in the short-term post-op, the recurrence of asymmetry is one of the most common weak points of breast recontouring. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the long-lasting maintenance of breast symmetry in women who have undergone surgical correction of asymmetric breasts through mastopexy or reduction mammoplasty and to try to identify some specific elements to achieve more stable outcomes in the long term.

[METHODS] A retrospective study was conducted on 1,984 breast surgical procedures carried out between 2002 and 2020 to evaluate patient satisfaction and the recurrence rate of asymmetry disorders. All the patients enrolled in this study were given a questionnaire to evaluate their satisfaction level. A retrospective iconographic-chart review was investigated by the same senior surgeon, who recorded the presence or the absence of recurring breast asymmetry.

[RESULTS] In total, 1984 patients were enrolled who respected the minimum standard of the study; 596 showed up at post-op follow-up longer than three years. Most of the patients showed great satisfaction with the results, even if several recurrences of asymmetry were reported.

[CONCLUSIONS] The recurrence of asymmetry is one of the most common weak points of breast asymmetry correction procedures due to the high dimorphism of the breasts. In order to fully assess the results of asymmetric breast correction, patients should be required to attend a post-op follow-up examination after a long time frame. Indeed, the strength of this paper lies in the focus on long-term postoperative follow-up.

[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V] This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .