Kai Yuen Wong1, Charles M Malata2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cambridge Breast Unit at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Postgraduate Medical Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford and Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: cmalata@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous surgical techniques exist for gynaecomastia treatment. Although ultrasound-assisted liposuction (UAL) is thought to be more effective than conventional liposuction, to date there remains no objective and direct comparison of the two modalities. Hence, a comparative study was performed of a single surgeon's experience over 13 years using two definitive parameters, namely intraoperative conversion to open excision and postoperative revisional surgery rates. METHODS: All gynaecomastia patients treated with UAL or conventional liposuction (1999-2012) were retrospectively studied. UAL was only available in the private sector and was used for all such patients with no other selection or exclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (384 breasts) with a mean age of 29 years (range 12-74) were evaluated. UAL was utilised in 24% of breasts (47 patients, 91 breasts). Compared with conventional liposuction, UAL had significantly lower rates of intraoperative conversion to open excision (25% vs. 39%; p<0.05) and postoperative revision (2% vs. 19%; p<0.001) using Fisher's exact test. The haematoma rate for each technique was 1%. CONCLUSION: UAL is a more effective treatment modality for gynaecomastia than conventional liposuction as determined by intraoperative conversion to open surgery and subsequent need for revision.
BACKGROUND: Numerous surgical techniques exist for gynaecomastia treatment. Although ultrasound-assisted liposuction (UAL) is thought to be more effective than conventional liposuction, to date there remains no objective and direct comparison of the two modalities. Hence, a comparative study was performed of a single surgeon's experience over 13 years using two definitive parameters, namely intraoperative conversion to open excision and postoperative revisional surgery rates. METHODS: All gynaecomastia patients treated with UAL or conventional liposuction (1999-2012) were retrospectively studied. UAL was only available in the private sector and was used for all such patients with no other selection or exclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients (384 breasts) with a mean age of 29 years (range 12-74) were evaluated. UAL was utilised in 24% of breasts (47 patients, 91 breasts). Compared with conventional liposuction, UAL had significantly lower rates of intraoperative conversion to open excision (25% vs. 39%; p<0.05) and postoperative revision (2% vs. 19%; p<0.001) using Fisher's exact test. The haematoma rate for each technique was 1%. CONCLUSION: UAL is a more effective treatment modality for gynaecomastia than conventional liposuction as determined by intraoperative conversion to open surgery and subsequent need for revision.
Authors: Giuseppe Andrea Ferraro; Francesco De Francesco; Tiziana Romano; Anna Grandone; Francesco D'Andrea; Emanuele Miraglia Del Giudice; Laura Perrone; Gianfranco Nicoletti Journal: Int J Surg Case Rep Date: 2014-11-18
Authors: Peter P Pfeiler; Rosalia Luketina; Khaled Dastagir; Peter M Vogt; Tobias R Mett; Alexander Kaltenborn; Sören Könneker Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 2.708