This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
cleaned this up
I did a pretty thorough redo of this sub-topic involving breast anatomy/pathology. It was previously kind of a political statement rather then an actual descriptor of a medical condition.Droliver02:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I highly object to your "clean-up". It is not a medical term. It is a term used by plastic surgeons and other people to make it sound medical. To prove my point, go to the National Library of Medicine and search for the term, "Micromastia". Guess what? I did and it isn't there. Because unlike real diseases, they don't list it.
"kind of a political statement"? I guess if mentioning that it isn't a disease but a value judgment, which the facts support, is a political statement, you would be right.
The real medical terms would be hypoplasia or Poland's syndrome, not Micromastia. Let's look at what you wrote, "describing the postpubertal underdevelopment of a woman's breast tissue." The term "underdevelopment" means that the breast tissue does not develop properly. Thus, if we use your example, no matter how small a women's breasts are, if they can be used to breast feed, then they are not Micromastia. Because exactly how are they supposed to develop more than that? Is there some use for breasts that I am unaware of besides breast feeding? If so, please enlighten me. Fanra08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Farna, micromastia is indeed a synonym for hypoplasia and is used interchangibly in peer reviewed publications. You can find it all over medline in the title & synopsis of surgery, gynecologic, and some psychiatry papers. The ICD-9 code would be the same as hypoplasia.
Micromastia/hypoplasia is not a disease, but rather a descriptor of a congenital deformity which is exactly how it's described (deformity is not a pejorative decriptor in this case). The mention of post-pubertal is important in that prior to then, a undeveloped or hypoplastic state would be broadly defined as the normal. Micromastia/hypoplasia is not really a functional descriptor (although a relative paucity of breast tissue or ductal architecture can affect lactation volume or potential) so your exception to "underdevelopment" is out of context
On my talk page you asked about corrective surgery and it's potential issues. Those are addressed at length in the entry on breast implants which is where that seperate issue belongsDroliver03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started to frame a really good argument about how, a.) Micromastia is not hypoplasia, since micromastia just means small breasts, regardless of if they are "fully" developed (ie. you can have breasts that give milk and are small) and b.) How, since there isn't a real medical description of it, ie. it can't be measured, that it isn't science (the definition of science is it can be measured) and therefore not medicine, since even mental illnesses can be "measured" in one way or another.
But rather than argue about it, I'm simply removing anything that is not sourced. Your article has no sources for the definition of the term, other than one source that only says about Micromastia the following, "Micromastia (ie, small breasts) is obviously the reason patients seek an enlargement procedure."
As you yourself explained, this article is not the place for information about corrective surgery and its potential issues, therefore I am removing it except to mention that such surgery can enlarge breasts, thus your paragraph about "mental health and quality of life issues" from surgery belong in the breast enhancement surgery article, not here.
If you feel your point is correct, please provide some sources. I'm putting back the parts of my post that have sources. I respectfully request that should you find sources to support your claims that you add it to the article rather than removing what I post, since what I post will have sources and while you may disagree with them, my post is still valid. According to Wikipedia rules, all information from valid sources is permitted as long as any controversy is explained and NPOV is observed.
I'm leaving up the Point of View Disputed tag since I feel you might still dispute what I posted. If you don't, please let me know or just remove it. If you have further problems with my post or my actions removing your unsourced words, please say so and we can try to resolve this. If you feel that we can't resolve this between us, then we can ask for mediation. Thank you. Fanra21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fanra, sorry this fell off my radar for awhile. There is nothing "controversial" per se over this medical terminology. That really involves the unique American historical over issues breast augmentation and is discussed in the entry on breeast implants. A pop-culture sarcastic editorial from Time is kind of tangential here. The vanilla treatment proposed with links to related entries on augmentation, reconstruction, and anatomy serves the entry the best I submit.
I'm working on redoing this to address some of your points re. refs. I'm trying to figure out the infobox html and how to cite some pubs. to flesh things out. Feel free to email me! Cheers, Rob.Droliver 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Droliver11:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed a totally-disputed tag on this article. Not only is it POV but my edits which explain that there is a controversy, which were sourced, were removed despite my polite request (above) that it not be removed but that any other points of view be added so as to keep the article "balanced". Fanra22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
micromastia just means small breasts, regardless of if they are "fully" developed (ie. you can have breasts that give milk and are small) Fanra20:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is valid for you to quote sources that say the controversy is wrong, it is hiding your head in the sand to pretend one does not exist. Fanra 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments
The term is only use five times in the scientific literature, which does not bode well for its legitimacy. Two of the mentions are in notes, not articles. One of the five times mentions it in the context of breast asymmetry. None of the other seems to consider it a deformity or illness, but rather a descriptive term, used to distinguish surgeries for augmentation from surgeries for breast hypertrophy, mastectomy repair etc. I would hazard to guess that at best it could be used to mean small-but-healthy breasts. Speciate05:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
micromastia is really just another synonym to describe breast hypoplasia, which is a multi-factorial pathology covering everything from structural issues of the chest wall to vague subjective notions that one's breasts are "too small" in an aesthetic sense. It's a real term (if not one I tend to use) and indexed in sources like Dorlands Medical Dictionary which is good enough for meDroliver00:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
micromastia is not just another synonym to describe breast hypoplasia, since hypoplasia means underdeveloped, while micromastia can include fully developed breasts that just happen to be small. But we are just rehashing what is written above, this space is really for comments from other people. Fanra10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DrOliver is completely correct here. The term is certainly used more than "7 times" and is recognized by most readers as a synonym for breast hypoplasia. As for many disorders of size, the boundary between what might be termed micromastia and "small but normal" is not sharp and is partly statistical and partly value judgement, just like a medical definition of short stature. alteripse11:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A medical treatment, with phrasing about "subjective" small size seems the best way to go. Referenced facts including that micromastia does not interfere with lactation should be included. There should not be a "Controversy" section. The Dorlands Medical Dictionary definition above should be used as the reference, in the article, for the fact that it's a medical term. That dictionary is print as well as online, yes? Use the book citation template and include the URL for the reference. Enuja02:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also goes by the name of micromazia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.93.242.65 (talk) 21:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
There's a page on Man Boobs. If someone gets polio and has one boob is all shrivelled and funky while the other is normal-sized, there ought to be a term for it... oh wait, there is a term for it. Micromastia. It's in Taber's too (along with macromastia). It's a legitimate word describing a legitimate condition. I think we can prevent controversy here by not including young women looking at big-breasted celebrities and fretting over their A-cups. I agree with Enuja about distinguishing between small functional boobs and underdeveloped (non-working) ones. Dikke poes21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
