Anzeige
Erschienen in:
12.10.2021 | Original Article
Aesthetic Outcome of Gynecomastia Management with Conventional Liposuction and Cross-Chest Liposuction: A Prospective Comparative Study
Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2022
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Background
Liposuction is the most accepted technique for treatment of gynecomastia at present with or without residual gland tissue excision. Conventional liposuction uses incisions for introduction of cannula, made usually at the inframammary crease or axilla resulting in consequent scars. Cross-chest liposuction technique was introduced to avoid these additional scars and improve the aesthetic outcome. This study aimed to evaluate the difference between aesthetic outcome of conventional liposuction and cross-chest liposuction in treatment of gynecomastia.
Method
A prospective comparative study between 2 groups with 15 patients in each was conducted, one with conventional and the other cross-chest liposuction. Excision of residual gland tissue was performed through circum-areolar incision in both the groups. Aesthetic outcome was evaluated in both the groups using Likert scale and compared.
Result
The mean age of the patients was 22.6 years and the mean duration of presentation was 8.13 years. Satisfaction rate with conventional and cross-chest liposuction was 80% and 86%, respectively, as assessed by the patients. The rate was 80% and 77%, respectively, in both the groups as assessed by independent observer. The complication rate was 13.3% in conventional and 20% in cross-chest group. The difference in outcome was not statistically significant between two groups. Difference between the mean Likert scores of pre-operative and post-operative satisfaction was statistically significant for both the techniques.
Conclusion
The conventional and the cross-chest liposuction, both yield comparable results when used for treatment of gynecomastia in terms of aesthetic outcome.
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