Shaohua Qu1, Wei Zhang2, Shuqin Li3, Weili He2, Rongzhao Lu2, Qing Zhang2, Jie Zhang4, Ningxia Wang2. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Jinan University, 613# Huangpu Road West, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510630, China. qushaohua2009@163.com. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Jinan University, 613# Huangpu Road West, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510630, China. 3. Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, The Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang, China. 4. Department of Reproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children Hospital, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gynecomastia is the most common benign disease in males with an increasing prevalence in recent years. It may cause local pain and psychological disorders. The vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system has been reported to be a novel surgical approach for the treatment of gynecomastia. However, there are little detailed reports comparing the curative effect between traditional surgery and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for gynecomastia. Besides, there was little study which compared the application of two different systems for the treatment of gynecomastia. Our study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems for patients with gynecomastia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 83 patients with gynecomastia between January 2015 and December 2019. Open surgery was performed in 56 patients, and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was performed in 27 patients. The characteristics of patients as well as the curative effects between the two groups were analyzed. The two vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems (Mammotome and Encor) were performed for the patients with gynecomastia. The efficacy, safety, complications, and patient satisfactions were recorded during postoperative follow-up periods. RESULTS: Compared with the open surgery group, the vacuum-assisted breast biopsy group had significantly smaller scar sizes left after the operation (5.5 ± 1.3 cm vs 0.8 ± 0.2 cm, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay time (5.5 ± 2.4 ds vs 3.1 ± 1.6 ds, p < 0.001). Patients in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy group had a better cosmetic outcome than those in open surgery group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems according to the mean age, the mean operation time, sites, or grade. In addition, no serious complications were observed in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy group. All the patients recovered well and were satisfied with the cosmetic outcomes. CONCLUSION: The vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system can be used as a feasible and minimally invasive approach for the treatment of gynecomastia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 the most common benign disease in males with an increasing prevalence in recent years. It may cause local pain and psychological disorders. The vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system has been reported to be a novel surgical approach for the treatment of gynecomastia. However, there are little detailed reports comparing the curative effect between traditional surgery and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for gynecomastia. Besides, there was little study which compared the application of two different systems for the treatment of gynecomastia. Our study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems for patients with gynecomastia. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 83 patients with gynecomastia between January 2015 and December 2019. Open surgery was performed in 56 patients, and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was performed in 27 patients. The characteristics of patients as well as the curative effects between the two groups were analyzed. The two vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems (Mammotome and Encor) were performed for the patients with gynecomastia. The efficacy, safety, complications, and patient satisfactions were recorded during postoperative follow-up periods. RESULTS: Compared with the open surgery group, the vacuum-assisted breast biopsy group had significantly smaller scar sizes left after the operation (5.5 ± 1.3 cm vs 0.8 ± 0.2 cm, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay time (5.5 ± 2.4 ds vs 3.1 ± 1.6 ds, p < 0.001). Patients in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy group had a better cosmetic outcome than those in open surgery group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems according to the mean age, the mean operation time, sites, or grade. In addition, no serious complications were observed in vacuum-assisted breast biopsy group. All the patients recovered well and were satisfied with the cosmetic outcomes. CONCLUSION: The vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system can be used as a feasible and minimally invasive approach for the treatment of gynecomastia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 .
Entities:
Keywords:
Gynecomastia; Open surgery; Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system