Literature DB >> 34379157

Liposuction Assisted Gynecomastia Surgery With Minimal Periareolar Incision: a Systematic Review.

Theddeus Octavianus Hari Prasetyono1,2,3, Angelica Gracia Budhipramono4, Illona Andromeda4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study aims to analyse the quality of studies and revisit the liposuction assisted gynecomastia surgery performed through minimal incision.
METHODS: A systematic review, based on the literature in the PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Cochrane, to the treatment of Simon's grade I and II gynecomastia was conducted using keywords "gynecomastia" AND "liposuction." Study appraisal was performed using MINORS to assess the methodological quality of the paper.
RESULTS: There were 18 out of 415 studies eligible to review. A total of 244 out of 1628 patients with the average age of 23.13 years. Liposuction facilitated the easy handling to remove the breast tissue via small incisional design; showed consistent improved quality of life in terms of satisfaction after surgery. However, the measuring method of satisfaction rate varied, resulting in difficulties to interpret the results. Complication rates were inconsistent throughout the studies, ranging from 0.06 to 26.67%. Reoperation rate of liposuction-assisted surgery is between 0.6 and 25%. There are only two studies of a total 25 patients that are considered as good in quality. The two studies, which discuss laser-assisted liposuction technique, show minor complication of seroma in two patients. While one study shows high patient's satisfaction rate; both studies indicate high surgeon's satisfaction rate.
CONCLUSION: Small incisional design for breast parenchymal removal in gynecomastia assisted by liposuction showed a good technical approach for consistent improvement in quality of life. However, only 2 studies reported good quality methods of non-randomized case series urging for a better quality of studies in the future. 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 .
© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34379157     DOI: 10.1007/s00266-021-02520-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg        ISSN: 0364-216X            Impact factor:   2.326


  3 in total

1.  Invited Response on: Prospective Analysis and Comparison of Periareolar Excision (Delivery) Technique and Pull-Through Technique for the Treatment of Gynecomastia.

Authors:  Satyaswarup Tripathy; Raman Sharma; Abhinav Likhyani; Ramesh Kumar Sharma
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 2.326

2.  Gynaecomastia Surgery: Should it be Individualised?

Authors:  Wagih Mommataz Ghnnam
Journal:  J Cutan Aesthet Surg       Date:  2014-04

3.  The Satisfaction Rate among Patients and Surgeons after Periareolar Surgical Approach to Gynecomastia along with Liposuction.

Authors:  Ahmad Reza Taheri; Mohamad Reza Farahvash; Hamid Reza Fathi; Koorosh Ghanbarzadeh; Bijan Faridniya
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2016-09
  3 in total
  2 in total

1.  Clinical Outcomes of Liposuction Assisted Gynecomastia Surgery with Minimal Periareolar Incision.

Authors:  Arjun Pant; Amudhan Kannan; Nidhi Nagaraju; Sarthak Sinha; Jaiveer Singh; Enakshi Paruthy; Sudharsanan Sundaramurthi
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 2.708

2.  Invited Discussion on: "Aesthetic Outcome of Gynecomastia Management with Conventional Liposuction and Cross-Chest Liposuction: a Prospective Comparative Study".

Authors:  Michele L Zocchi; Vincenzo Vindigni
Journal:  Aesthetic Plast Surg       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 2.708

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.