Outcomes of surgical correction for congenital breast asymmetry

Manturova N.E.; Kiseleva D.I.; Melnikov D.V.; Chernetsov R.V.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202602243

Manturova N.E.

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia;
Institute of Plastic Surgery and Cosmetology, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-4281-1947

Kiseleva D.I.

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-4640-8189

Melnikov D.V.

Institute of Plastic Surgery and Cosmetology, Moscow, Russia

Scopus AuthorID: 56351554700
ORCID: 0000-0001-9370-5904

Chernetsov R.V.

Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0009-0006-7257-3440

Outcomes of surgical correction for congenital breast asymmetry

Authors:

Manturova N.E., Kiseleva D.I., Melnikov D.V., Chernetsov R.V.

More about the authors

Journal: Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2026;(2‑2): 43‑50

DOI: 10.17116/plast.hirurgia202602243

Read: 368 times

To cite this article:

Manturova NE, Kiseleva DI, Melnikov DV, Chernetsov RV. Outcomes of surgical correction for congenital breast asymmetry. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2026;(2‑2):43‑50. (In Russ., In Engl.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202602243

Подписка 2026 Пластическая хирургия и эстетическая медицина (Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of symmetrical mastopexy with different-sized Mentor and Motiva implants versus asymmetric surgical techniques in correction of congenital breast asymmetry.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study included 28 patients with congenital breast asymmetry who underwent surgery in 2021—2025. The main group (n=20) underwent symmetrical mastopexy (identical procedure on both breasts) with different-sized implants. The control group (n=8) underwent asymmetric procedures (different types of mastopexy and/or incisions) also with different-sized implants. Morphometric parameters (sternal notch-to-nipple distance, nipple-to-inframammary fold distance, midline-to-nipple distance, areola diameter, breast footprint width), patient satisfaction (BREAST-Q), complication and redo surgery rates were assessed. Nonparametric methods (Mann—Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test) were used. Data were presented as median and interquartile range Me [Q1; Q3].

RESULTS

In the main group, postoperative absolute differences between sides were 0—0.1 cm for all parameters. The control group retained residual differences in nipple-to-inframammary fold distance (0.3 [0.1; 0.7] cm) and midline-to-nipple distance (0.2 [0.1; 0.4] cm) (p<0.05). The median BREAST-Q score at 6 months was 99.0 [98.0; 100] and 89.0 [85.0; 93.0], respectively (p<0.01). Redo surgeries were performed in 5 (25.0%) and 3 (37.5%) patients, respectively. Areola corrections dominated in the main group (4 out of 5). In the control group, implant exchange and areola corrections were carried out in 1 and 2 cases, respectively. No capsular contracture or infectious complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Symmetrical mastopexy with different-sized implants provides more accurate restoration of symmetry compared to asymmetric procedures with comparable satisfaction and acceptable redo surgery rate.

Keywords:

congenital breast asymmetry

symmetrical mastopexy

different-sized implants

BREAST-Q

Authors:

Manturova N.E.

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia;
Institute of Plastic Surgery and Cosmetology, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0003-4281-1947

Kiseleva D.I.

Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0000-0002-4640-8189

Melnikov D.V.

Institute of Plastic Surgery and Cosmetology, Moscow, Russia

Scopus AuthorID: 56351554700
ORCID: 0000-0001-9370-5904

Chernetsov R.V.

Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia

ORCID: 0009-0006-7257-3440

Received:

19.03.2026

Accepted:

12.04.2026

Close metadata

References:

International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS Global Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2024. Hanover, NH: ISAPS; 2025.
International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. ISAPS International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Procedures Performed in 2021. Hanover, NH: ISAPS; 2022.
Rintala AE, Nordstrom RE. Treatment of severe developmental asymmetry of the female breast. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery. 1989;23(3):231-235. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844318909075123
Onesti MG, Mezzana P, Martano A, Scuderi N. Breast asymmetry: a new classification. Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2004;53(6):523-527.
DeLuca-Pytell DM, Piazza RC, Holding JC, Snyder N, Hunsicker LM, Phillips LG. The incidence of tuberous breast deformity in asymmetric and symmetric mammoplasty patients. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2005; 116(7):1894-1901. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000189206.94466.a9
Chan W, Mathur B, Slade-Sharman D, Ramakrishnan V. Developmental breast asymmetry. Breast Journal. 2011;17(4):391-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01104.x
Sadove AM, van Aalst JA. Congenital and acquired pediatric breast anomalies: a review of 20 years’ experience. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2005;115(4):1039-1050. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000154214.99641.72
Milanov NO, Li AG. Breast asymmetry. On the issue of surgical systematization. Annaly` plasticheskoj, rekonstruktivnoj i e`steticheskoj hirurgii. 2006;(2): 59-67. (In Russ.).
Vandenbussche F. Asymmetries of the breast: a classification system. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 1984;8(1):27-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01572782
Grolleau JL, Lanfrey E, Lavigne B, Chavoin JP, Costagliola M. Breast base anomalies: treatment strategy for tuberous breasts, minor deformities and asymmetry. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1999;104(7):2040-2048. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199912000-00015
Tekfiliz İ, Yıldız K, Aliyev A, Seyhan N. Two-Stage Surgical Management of Accessory Breast Tissue with Pedicled Breast Tissue: A Case Report of Asymmetry Correction. Annals of Plastic Surgery. 2024;93(4):430-433. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004034
Simon BE, Hoffman S, Kahn S. Classification and surgical correction of asymmetry of the breasts. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1975;55(1):7-16. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197501000-00003
Kuzbari R, Deutinger M, Todoroff BP, Schneider B, Freilinger G. Surgical treatment of developmental asymmetry of the breast. Scandinavian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery. 1993;27(4):285-289. https://doi.org/10.3109/02844319309078112
von Heimburg D, Exner K, Kruff S, Lemperle G. The tuberous breast deformity: classification and treatment. British Journal of Plastic Surgery. 1996;49(6):339-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0007-1226(96)90000-4
De Vita R, Buccheri EM, Villanucci A, Ragusa LA. Breast asymmetry, classification, and algorithm of treatment: our experience. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2019;43(6):1439-1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01489-0
Araco A, Gravante G, Araco F, Gentile P, Castrì F, Delogu D, Filingeri V, Cervelli V. Breast asymmetries: a brief review and our experience. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2006;30(3):309-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-005-0178-x
Peterson B, Alajmi H, Ladak A, Samargandi OA. Breast equalization augmentation: the use of ultrasonic assisted liposuction for correction of primary breast asymmetry with bilateral augmentation. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2022;46(2):667-674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02528-5
Korableva NP, Zholtikov VV, Bozhok AA, Lebedeva YuV. Circumlateral vertical mastopexy in tuberous breast deformity. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2022;2:11-18. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202202111
Barone M, Salzillo R, Cogliandro A, Tenna S, Persichetti P. Comparison of Same Versus Different Projection Implants in Asymmetric Tuberous Breasts: Long-Term Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Analysis. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. 2025. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04898-6
Jones GE. Bostwick’s Plastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme; 2009.
Bruschi S, Bogetti P, Bocchiotti MA, Kefalas N, Boriani F, Marchesi D, Verga M, Fraccalvieri M. Congenital mammary asymmetry: classification and surgical treatment. Annali Italiani di Chirurgia. 2007;78(3):177-182.
Maxwell GP. Breast asymmetry. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2001;21(6):552-562. https://doi.org/10.1067/maj.2001.121139
Tebbetts JB. Dual plane breast augmentation: optimizing implant-soft-tissue relationships in a wide range of breast types. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2006;118(7 Suppl):81S-102S. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200612001-00012
AlQhtani A. Immediate Symmetrization of the Contralateral Breast in Breast Reconstruction-Revision, Complications, and Satisfaction: A Systematic Review. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Global Open. 2024;12(2):e5586. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000005586
Kiseleva DI, Melnikov DV, Manturova NE. A clinical case of correction of combined breast asymmetry using symmetrical mastopexy and implantation of implants of different sizes and designs. Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine. 2023;4(2):82-87. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/plast.hirurgia202304282
Suhail D, Faderani R, Kalaskar DM, Mosahebi A. Optimal strategies for addressing developmental breast asymmetry and the significance of symmetrical treatment: A systematic review. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 2023;84:582-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2023.06.056
Spear SL, Dayan JH, West J. The etiology and treatment of breast asymmetry: a review and 10-year experience of the Georgetown University Hospital. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2009;124(2):367-376.
Sharobaro VI, Baeva AA, Mokshina NV. Algorithm of one-stage correction of breast asymmetry in patients with hypomastia. Klinicheskaya praktika. 2016;7(2):5-14. (In Russ.).