Page 132 - Read Online

Page 6 of 9 Kotti. Plast Aesthet Res 2018;5:16 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2018.11

Figure 8. Venus of Willendorf

Figure 9. Venus of Milo

surgical treatments, has been exposed by a number of publications and classifications of ptotic breasts since
Dufourmentel and Mouly’s book in 1959 .
[3]

Dufourmentel and Mouly defined ptosis by the dropping of the nipple down and out using “5 cm” as a level
unit to switch from a grade to another , while Lalardrie and Jouglard chose the inframammary fold (IMF)
[3]
as a benchmark to measure the fall of the lowest point of the breast using 2 and then 4-10 cm as the levels at
which grades switch . They also reported a change in the form of segment II, normally convex according
[4,5]
to their interpretation and becoming straight and then concave with ptosis.

A normal natural breast in our observations will never have a spontaneously convex segment 2; this remains
an effect of a push-up or a surgical procedure.

Regnault proposed one of the most common classifications to date, using a combination of these two
[6]
former classifications while taking the nipple, the IMF and the lowest point on the breast as landmarks to
define various grades as well as the “normal breast”, “pseudo ptosis” and “parenchymal maldistribution”.

By avoiding the use of numbers and centimeters and the individualization of two extra different types
involving the glandular distribution during the breast development, Regnault proposed a wide and wise
[6]
clinical observation of the various types of breasts, explaining the popularity of this classification worldwide.