Advertisement

Round Block Technique

  • Fábio Bagnoli
  • Guilherme Novita
  • Vicente Renato Bagnoli
  • Vilmar Marques Oliveira
Chapter

Abstract

Conservative surgery followed by radiation therapy is considered the method of choice for the treatment of breast cancer. In some cases, even though conservative surgery adequately treats cancer, it results in breast mutilation levels whose deleterious esthetic effects are very important, and thus, the partial reconstruction of the breast, also called oncoplasty gains space. The Round Block periareolar technique was reported in 1988 by Benelli (Rev Fr Chir Esthet 13:7–11, 1988) and differed from the periareolar mammoplasty techniques used until then, since with certain details of the new technique, the indications for periareolar mammoplasty were no longer limited to small volume breasts and those with a small degree of ptosis. Another advantage of the new technique was the lower incidence of enlargement and distortion of the scar caused by suture tension. With the development of oncoplastic surgery, periareolar techniques gained space in breast oncologic and repair treatment. A combination of techniques enabled access to tumors in different topographies in addition to breast remodeling, correction of ptosis, and breast hypertrophy.

Supplementary material

Video 28.1

(MP4 123899 kb)

Video 28.2

(MOV 1668604 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, Greco M, Saccozzi R, Luini A et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1227–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, Margolese RG, Deutsch M, Fisher ER et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(16):1233–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (1999) Does cosmetic outcomes from trearment of primary breast cancer influence psychosocial morbidity? Eur J Surg Oncol 25(6):571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW (2000) Comparison of psychological aspects and patient satisfaction following breast conserving surgery, simplemastectomy and breast reconstruction. Eur J Cancer 36(15):1938–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clough KB, Kroll SS, Audretsch W (1999) An approach to the repair of partial mastectomy defects. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:409–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Urban C, Lima R, Schunemann E, Spautz C, Rabinovich I, Anselmi K (2011) Oncoplastic principles in breast conserving surgery. The Breast 20(Suppl 3):S92–S95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rainsburry RM (2007) Surgery Insight: oncoplastic breast-conserving reconstruction—indications, benefits, choices and outcomes. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 4(11):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cochrane R, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates to the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90:1505–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waljee JF, Hu ES, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Newman LA, Alderman AK (2008) Effect of esthetic outcome after breast-conserving surgery on psychosocial functioning and quality of life. J Clin Oncol 26(20):3331–3337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    BASO (2007) Oncoplastic breast surgery—a guide to good practice. Eur J Surg Oncol 33(Suppl 1):S1–S23Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pitanguy I (1961) Mamaplastias: estudo de 245 casos consecutivos e apresentação de técnica pessoal. Rev Bras Cir 42(4):201–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pitanguy I (1967) Surgical treatment of breast hypertrophy. Br J Plast Surg 20(1):78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ribeiro L (1975) A new technique for reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 55(3):330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andrews JM, Yshizuki MM, Martins DM, Ramos RR (1975) An areolar approach to reduction mammaplasty. Br J Plast Surg 28(3):166–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benelli L (1988) Technique de plastic mammaire le round block. Rev Fr Chir Esthet 13:7–11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dartigues L (1928) Etat actuel de la chirurgie esthétique mammaire. Monde Med 38:75Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erol O, Spira M (1980) Mastopexy techinique for mild to moderate ptosis. Plast Reconstr Surg 65:603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faivre J, Carissimo A, Faivre JM (1984) La voie péri-aréolaire dans le traitement des petites ptoses mammaires. In: Chirurgie Esthétique. Paris: Maloine.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gruber RP, Jones HW Jr (1980) The ‘donut’ mastopexy: indications and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 65(1):34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hinderer U (1972) Plastia mammaria modelante de dermopexia superficial y retromammaria. Rev Esp Cirurg Plast 5:521Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kausch W (1916) Die operationen der mammahypertrophie. Zentralbl Chir 43:713Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benelli L (1990) A new periareolar mammaplasty: round block technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg 14(2):93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vogt T (1990) Mammaplasty: the Vogt technique. In: Georgiade NG (ed) Aesthetic surgery of the breast. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 271–290Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benelli LC (2011) Periareolar Benelli mastopexy and reduction: The Round Block. In: Spear SL (ed) Surgery of the breast—principles and art. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 960–971Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Góes JCS (1989) Periareolar mammaplasty: double skin technique. Rev Soc Bras Cir Plast 4:55–63Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Góes JCS (2002) Periareolar mammaplasty: Double skin technique with application of mesh support. Clin Plast Surg 29:349–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bulstrode NW, Shrotria S (2001) Prediction of cosmetic outcome following conservative breast surgery using breast volume measurements. Breast 10(2):124–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clough KB, Kaufman GB, Nos C, Buccimazza I, Sarfati IM (2010) Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1375–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bozola AR (2009) Periareolar breast reduction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:228–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Losken A, Dugal CS, Styblo TM, Carlson GW (2014) A meta-analysis comparing breast conservation therapy alone to the oncoplastic technique. Ann Plast Surg 72(2):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Lorenzi F, Hubner G, Rotmensz N, Bagnardi V, Loschi P, Maisonneuve P et al (2016) Oncological results of oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: long term follow-up of a large series at a single institution: A matched-cohort analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 42(1):71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rohrich RJ, Gosman AA, Brown SA, Reisch J (2006) Mastopexy preferences: a survey of board-certified plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 118(7):1631–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fábio Bagnoli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guilherme Novita
    • 3
  • Vicente Renato Bagnoli
    • 4
  • Vilmar Marques Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Breast Unit, Gynecology and Obstetric DepartamentSanta Casa de Misericórdia de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Faculdade de Ciências Médicas da Santa Casa de São Paulo (FCMSCSP)São PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Breast Unit, Paulistano HospitalSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Gynecology DepartamentFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (USP)São PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations