Talk:Mastopexy

Untitled

This article reads too much like a commercial. Should have some references to why women would want to do this, things about body image etc. It reads like it was lifted (hah hah) out of a plastic surgeon's brochure

12.159.138.194 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a surgical procedure, not about the phenomenon of plastic surgery in society. The content is rightfully constrained to the technical matters of the procedure. Body image, reasons for surgery, and other discussion belong in the articles on plastic surgery and breast augmentation in general. 70.176.60.148 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Anatomy of the breast

The information in this section does not belong in the article. It is far too general of information for an article that is specifically about Mastopexy. All of it is already found in the article about the human breast and that is where it belongs. Please stop adding it back in. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to the post below, I would argue that the disputed content is far from "required." Even a non-expert can understand this article without reading an essay about the anatomy of the breast. And if they do want additional information, the See Also section has several useful links, including one to Breast. In my opinion, repeatedly pasting this material to any breast surgery article is like pasting the entire rules of baseball into every baseball player's article. It seems overkill to me.

And as for being a physician, no I certainly am not. Wikipedia doesn't require its editors to be experts and in some situtations (like this one), it's actually helpful not to be an expert. I can tell you that even as a non-physician, I had no problem understanding this article without an additional, detailed explanation of breast anatomy. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Effect of wound healing pharmaceuticals as well as their professional use

I have seen cosmetic surgeons create online pages about the use of wound healing chemicals as part of cosmetic surgery. That could be described as well as referenced at the article some pubmed references are curcurmin doubles rate of healing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660044 , ginger extract doubles rate of healing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19660044 , chitosan alginate gel doubles rate of healing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19918372. doubled rate of healing is my description of the data from figures as well as full text. Some of these papers have also have images of tissue quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treonsverdery (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Youtube video suggests that hormones mimicing pregnancy are of cosmetic value

This youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHsuwkRL_Q says that while some surgical augmentations have the result of a woman changing her implants, that hormonal mimicry of pregnancy without pregnancy would also reshape breasts cosmetically Does that have an article or publications.

Deletion of factual material supporting the surgery article.

Hi, Fyrael:

I have reverted your deletion of required medical information, because it truncates the full information the reader requires; look up Wikipedia:The perfect article, bullet number four.

Please write to me, and discuss why you have deleted relevant medical information about a surgical procedure. Are you a physician?

What do you mean: We don't need it? Please reply and explain.

Otto Placik (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been addressed in the talk section above.--Taylornate (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

communication templates

I added these once before and they were hastily removed. I would like to put some effort into this article, but any attempts are quickly reverted. So for now I will stick to these communication templates to avoid wasting my time. I think they speak for themselves, but I will add a subsection below for each one for clarity of discussion:--Taylornate (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Speak up

Your tags do not speak for themselves, you must speak for yourself. Surely, as a 4-th year med student, you can identify where in the Mastopexy article are the errors. Identify them, show your good faith as a Wikipedia Medical Editor.

Otto Placik (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical

The vandalism re-tagging of correct material

To the Page Owner and Medical Student User: Taylornate:

You have incorrectly tagged this page for half a year, just to harass User: Otto Placik. The "errors" you claimed existed were corrected several times, yet you insist on misrepresenting the facts with your OPINION. There is no duplication and there is no how-to, because User: Mhazard9 and User: Otto Placik resolved that already. Is your personal quarrel (from July 2011) against User: Otto Placik so poisonous that drive-by tagging harassment is your only way of getting him to pay you attention? A doctor does not obey a med student. Respect the boundaries, the facts contradict your 4th-year med student opinion. Learn to live and let live. No-one owes you page ownership deference; the facts do not support you.

99.91.51.171 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Speak up

Your tags do not speak for themselves, you must speak for yourself. Surely, as a 4-th year med student, you can identify where in the Mastopexy article are the errors. Identify them, show your good faith as a Wikipedia Medical Editor.

Otto Placik (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall, the article seems to be written for medical professionals, while per WP:MEDMOS it should be written for the general reader. As-is, I think this article would be great for Wikibooks, but for Wikipedia I think it needs to be greatly simplified. I propose copying this article to Wikibooks and then rewriting the article here. Here are a few representative examples of prose that I think should be simplified. I will put a comment or a suggested simplified version below the original version which I will put in italics.

• The law of gravity of the Earth is the most common cause of breast ptosis, the prolapsation (sagging) from the chest of the mammary gland tissues (glandular, adipose, skin).
  • The weight of the breasts causes them to sag.
• Moderate ptosis, which can be corrected with a circumareolar donut mastopexy technique featuring Benelli cerclage suturing; and with circumvertical-incision (lollipop mastopexy) techniques such as the Regnault B Mastopexy and the Lejour–Lassus breast reduction.
  • The general reader has no hope of understanding this.
• Moreover, the postpartum diminishment (involution) of the voluminous milk glands in the breast aggravates the sagging caused by the loose suspensory ligaments, and by the inelasticity of the skin envelope.
  • After breastfeeding is completed, the breasts become smaller and the skin does not shrink back to compensate.

I'm not going to respond to the IP, but if you think I am harassing you, or you have some other problem with my conduct, please leave me a message on my talk page and we can talk about it.--Taylornate (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How to

I placed this tag mainly for the surgical techniques section.--Taylornate (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism re-tagging of correct material

To the Page Owner and Medical Student User: Taylornate:

You have incorrectly tagged this page for half a year, just to harass User: Otto Placik. The "errors" you claimed existed were corrected several times, yet you insist on misrepresenting the facts with your OPINION. There is no duplication and there is no how-to, because User: Mhazard9 and User: Otto Placik resolved that already. Is your personal quarrel (from July 2011) against User: Otto Placik so poisonous that drive-by tagging harassment is your only way of getting him to pay you attention? A doctor does not obey a med student. Respect the boundaries, the facts contradict your 4th-year med student opinion. Learn to live and let live. No-one owes you page ownership deference; the facts do not support you.

99.91.51.171 (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Speak up

Your tags do not speak for themselves, you must speak for yourself. Surely, as a 4-th year med student, you can identify where in the Mastopexy article are the errors. Identify them, show your good faith as a Wikipedia Medical Editor.

Otto Placik (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, I placed this tag for the surgical techniques section. It is full of instruction and I think that is unavoidable in a section with that title. Here is an example paragraph that is pure instruction:

The plastic surgeon delineates the mastopexy incision-plan upon the patient’s breasts and torso; the principal corrective consideration is the correct level of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) upon the breast hemisphere. In most women, the nipple should be located at, or slightly above, the inframammary fold (IMF), because emplacing it too high might later lead to a difficult revision surgery. The proper topographic locale for the nipple is determined by transposing the semicircular line of the inframammary fold to the face of the breast (anterior aspect), thereby configuring a circle, wherein the NAC is centred. After determining the nipple locale, the surgeon delineates the remaining skin incisions of the correction, while maintaining the inferior limit of the vertical-incision at a distance above the pre-operative IMF, which precaution avoids extending the surgical scar to the chest wall after the lifting of the breast and the inframammary fold.--Taylornate (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Duplication

I put this one in the surgical anatomy section, which already has some discussion above. The same exact section has been deleted and restored at least twice, on multiple articles.--Taylornate (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. It is specific to the matter. Sorry it took so long. I'll follow up with the others, too. Thanks, for your understanding patience, and for respecting the boundaries.

Otto Placik (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that you added a line specific to the procedure, but I still believe most of the section is unnecessary and would be more appropriate in breast. This template states "This section duplicates, in whole or part, the scope of other article(s) or section(s)." This is very straightforward and I don't see how you can disagree. What boundaries are you referring to? Please read wp:ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylornate (talk • contribs) 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's been a month. Have you gotten a chance to read wp:ownership? I would like to work with you to improve this and other articles, but I can't do that if you undo all my changes. Do you want to collaborate with other people on these topics or do you want to work by yourself?--Taylornate (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism re-tagging of correct material

To the Page Owner and Medical Student User: Taylornate:

You have incorrectly tagged this page for half a year, just to harass User: Otto Placik. The "errors" you claimed existed were corrected several times, yet you insist on misrepresenting the facts with your OPINION. There is no duplication and there is no how-to, because User: Mhazard9 and User: Otto Placik resolved that already. Is your personal quarrel (from July 2011) against User: Otto Placik so poisonous that drive-by tagging harassment is your only way of getting him to pay you attention? A doctor does not obey a med student. Respect the boundaries, the facts contradict your 4th-year med student opinion. Learn to live and let live. No-one owes you page ownership deference; the facts do not support you. See your uncivil comment to User: Otto Placik above this response.

99.91.51.171 (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Speak up

Your tags do not speak for themselves, you must speak for yourself. Surely, as a 4-th year med student, you can identify where in the Mastopexy article are the errors. Identify them, show your good faith as a Wikipedia Medical Editor.

Otto Placik (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of pasting an identical message here, why don't you pick up the discussion where you left it over four months ago?--Taylornate (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Breast.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Breast.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Correction?

This article uses the term 'correction' a lot, sometimes in the context of a purely aesthetic decision. I would propose changing this to somethings like 'change', 'modification', or something more neutral. The implication that breasts that sag are 'incorrect' seems a little odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.94.191 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Taylornate (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I'll be changing this as I think it's an important thing to be addressed. And it doesn't seem to have been done already. Malik.albahlani (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Mechanical structures of the breast

The text lists 7 components — but the diagram to the right shows 8!

Rib cage and chest wall (no. 1 in text and diagram) seem to align, though it would be better if the terminology was consistent.

The astute reader may be able to work out that Chest muscles and pectoralis muscles (no. 2 in text and diagram) also correspond, because the text mentions the pectoralis major and minor muscles; however, the text also mentions the intercostal muscles, which are not identified in the diagram.

Pectoralis fascia (no. 3 in the text) has no corresponding identification in the diagram.

Suspensory ligaments (no. 4 in the text) has no corresponding identification in the diagram. These are further identified in the text as Cooper's ligaments - but in the article on Ptosis Dr. Christine Haycock (a surgeon at the New Jersey Medical School and an expert in sports medicine) is quoted as saying that "Cooper's ligaments have nothing to do with supporting breast tissue ... they just serve to divide the breast into compartments."

The astute reader can associate Glandular tissue (no. 5 in the text) with Lobules (no. 3 in the diagram) because the text mentions lobules.

Similarly, the astute reader may know that 'adipose' means 'fatty', and can therefore associate Adipose tissue (no. 6 in the text) with Fatty tissue (no. 7 in the diagram); also, the text mentions fatty acids.

Skin envelope is the only item that is common in terminology in text (no. 7) and diagram (no. 8)!

Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the diagram are not listed in the text, though Glandular tissue (no. 5 in the text) mentions 'lactiferous ducts (milk passages)'; the astute reader may be able to infer that these correspond with 'Milk duct' (no. 6 in the diagram).

Is it possible to adjust the diagram to suit the text, or vice versa?

Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

In a bit I will be changing the language in this article to a gender-neutral one. This page explains why it is important for sex-specific articles to use gender-neutral language (similar edits will be made on articles of this nature). Malik.albahlani (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)