Satyaswarup Tripathy1, Abhinav Likhyani1, Raman Sharma2, Ramesh Kumar Sharma1. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India. 2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India. dr.sharma.raman@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gynecomastia is one of the most common disorders affecting adolescent and adult males. It is a benign disorder but has severe psychological manifestations like low self-confidence, depression, anxiety and social phobia in patients suffering from gynecomastia. Different surgical techniques have been described utilizing a variety of incisions, excisions, lipectomy and liposuction methods. Very frequently, these methods are combined for the gynecomastia treatment with variable reported results. However, there is a lack of studies comparing these techniques. The present study was planned to compare cases of gynecomastia treated by liposuction with periareolar excision (delivery technique) and liposuction with a pull-through technique. METHOD: A prospective randomized control study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital on 20 patients with gynecomastia. The patients were assigned to either liposuction with periareolar excision (delivery technique) or liposuction with pull-through technique. Anthropometric analysis and breast evaluation questionnaire (BEQ) scores were analyzed and compared before and after the surgery. RESULTS: The majority of the study subjects were between 21 and 30 years of age. Low self-confidence was the main reason for surgery in most of the cases. Twelve patients had gynecomastia grade IIa and eight had grade IIb. Both groups had similar responses to BEQ scores before and after the surgery with no statistically significant difference. A statistically insignificant difference was observed between the groups on comparison of anthropometric analysis preoperatively and postoperatively. The mean lipoaspirate volume was 280 ml for the pull-through technique and 367 ml for the periareolar excision technique. No complications were observed in cases operated on by the pull-through technique, while two cases (10%) operated on by the periareolar excision had hematomas. CONCLUSION: Both techniques provide excellent cosmetic results with low risk of complications in both small and moderate breast enlargement with skin excess. The pull-through technique combines the benefits of direct excision of glandular tissues along with the minimally invasive nature of liposuction. Thus, performing the procedure via a single incision without the use of drains is a safer alternative to traditional liposuction with the periareolar excision technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: Gynecomastia is one of the most common disorders affecting adolescent and adult males. It is a benign disorder but has severe psychological manifestations like low self-confidence, depression, anxiety and social phobia in patients suffering from gynecomastia. Different surgical techniques have been described utilizing a variety of incisions, excisions, lipectomy and liposuction methods. Very frequently, these methods are combined for the gynecomastia treatment with variable reported results. However, there is a lack of studies comparing these techniques. The present study was planned to compare cases of gynecomastia treated by liposuction with periareolar excision (delivery technique) and liposuction with a pull-through technique. METHOD: A prospective randomized control study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital on 20 patients with gynecomastia. The patients were assigned to either liposuction with periareolar excision (delivery technique) or liposuction with pull-through technique. Anthropometric analysis and breast evaluation questionnaire (BEQ) scores were analyzed and compared before and after the surgery. RESULTS: The majority of the study subjects were between 21 and 30 years of age. Low self-confidence was the main reason for surgery in most of the cases. Twelve patients had gynecomastia grade IIa and eight had grade IIb. Both groups had similar responses to BEQ scores before and after the surgery with no statistically significant difference. A statistically insignificant difference was observed between the groups on comparison of anthropometric analysis preoperatively and postoperatively. The mean lipoaspirate volume was 280 ml for the pull-through technique and 367 ml for the periareolar excision technique. No complications were observed in cases operated on by the pull-through technique, while two cases (10%) operated on by the periareolar excision had hematomas. CONCLUSION: Both techniques provide excellent cosmetic results with low risk of complications in both small and moderate breast enlargement with skin excess. The pull-through technique combines the benefits of direct excision of glandular tissues along with the minimally invasive nature of liposuction. Thus, performing the procedure via a single incision without the use of drains is a safer alternative to traditional liposuction with the periareolar excision technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.