Analysis of Nipple-Areola Complex Localization Using Male Cadavers: Considerations for Gender-Affirming Surgery.
Journal
Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum
ISSN: 2631-4797
Titre abrégé: Aesthet Surg J Open Forum
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101771713
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
entrez:
6
10
2021
pubmed:
7
10
2021
medline:
7
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Masculinizing chest reconstruction is the most common gender-affirming surgery in transgender males. Despite the current literature's acknowledgment of the vital role that proper placement of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) plays in a masculine chest contour, there is still much debate regarding the best anatomical landmarks to achieve the desired result. The primary aim of this study is to determine which landmarks for NAC placement can be applied across diverse body types and aid surgeons in creating a masculine chest. Twenty-five formaldehyde-embalmed male cadavers were analyzed by conducting various measurements of the NAC, nipple, and surrounding bony and muscular landmarks to identify the most consistent landmarks for proper NAC placement. Linear regression analyses were run to determine how the distance between nipple to respective landmarks varied based on antemortem body mass index (BMI), height, weight, and age. The measurements for the inferior and lateral borders of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) displayed the least amount of variance of all the anatomical landmarks studied. Additionally, there was no significant change in these pectoral measurements with varying BMI, height, weight, or age, indicating that these measurements are reliable landmarks for NAC placement across various body types. The average NAC placement in relation to the inferior and lateral borders of PMM was around 2.5 and 2.0 cm, respectively. Our cadaveric analysis indicates that aesthetically pleasing masculine chest results can be produced consistently across varying body types when adhering to a simple pectoral approach in NAC placement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Masculinizing chest reconstruction is the most common gender-affirming surgery in transgender males. Despite the current literature's acknowledgment of the vital role that proper placement of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) plays in a masculine chest contour, there is still much debate regarding the best anatomical landmarks to achieve the desired result.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The primary aim of this study is to determine which landmarks for NAC placement can be applied across diverse body types and aid surgeons in creating a masculine chest.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-five formaldehyde-embalmed male cadavers were analyzed by conducting various measurements of the NAC, nipple, and surrounding bony and muscular landmarks to identify the most consistent landmarks for proper NAC placement. Linear regression analyses were run to determine how the distance between nipple to respective landmarks varied based on antemortem body mass index (BMI), height, weight, and age.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The measurements for the inferior and lateral borders of the pectoralis major muscle (PMM) displayed the least amount of variance of all the anatomical landmarks studied. Additionally, there was no significant change in these pectoral measurements with varying BMI, height, weight, or age, indicating that these measurements are reliable landmarks for NAC placement across various body types. The average NAC placement in relation to the inferior and lateral borders of PMM was around 2.5 and 2.0 cm, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our cadaveric analysis indicates that aesthetically pleasing masculine chest results can be produced consistently across varying body types when adhering to a simple pectoral approach in NAC placement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34611624
doi: 10.1093/asjof/ojab032
pii: ojab032
pmc: PMC8486918
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
ojab032Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Aesthetic Society.
Références
Turk J Emerg Med. 2018 Aug 07;18(3):91-93
pubmed: 30191186
Aesthet Surg J. 2020 Apr 14;40(5):NP228-NP237
pubmed: 31606742
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021 Jan 25;9(1):e3363
pubmed: 33564589
Ann Plast Surg. 2021 Jan;86(1):123
pubmed: 32694463
Urol Clin North Am. 2019 Nov;46(4):459-465
pubmed: 31582020
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 May;71(5):651-657
pubmed: 29422399
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Apr;143(4):857e-871e
pubmed: 30921151
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017 Sep;140(3):415e-424e
pubmed: 28841608
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017 Dec;41(6):1305-1310
pubmed: 28698936
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995 Nov;50 Spec No:11-6
pubmed: 7493202
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Dec;108(7):1947-52; discussion 1953
pubmed: 11743381
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Mar;121(3):849-859
pubmed: 18317134
Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Dec 13;38(1):49-57
pubmed: 29040349
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020 Oct;44(5):1478-1486
pubmed: 32500321
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan;143(1):272-279
pubmed: 30286047
Ann Plast Surg. 2020 Mar;84(3):334-340
pubmed: 31633544
J Clin Med. 2021 Feb 03;10(4):
pubmed: 33546220
Psychol Med. 2005 Jan;35(1):89-99
pubmed: 15842032
Ann Plast Surg. 2021 Jan;86(1):122-123
pubmed: 32784328
Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Jan 17;39(2):150-163
pubmed: 29945235
J Sex Med. 2016 Nov;13(11):1778-1786
pubmed: 27667355
Aesthet Surg J. 2018 Jun 13;38(7):742-748
pubmed: 29329370
Aesthet Surg J. 2020 Oct 24;40(11):NP619-NP625
pubmed: 32501483
Aesthet Surg J. 2020 Oct 24;40(11):NP626-NP627
pubmed: 32770208
Aesthet Surg J. 2015 Feb;35(2):NP20-7
pubmed: 25717123
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018 Aug;42(4):951-957
pubmed: 29644416