Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective Analysis and Comparison of Periareolar Excision (Delivery) Technique and Pull-Through Technique for the Treatment of Gynecomastia

  • Original Article
  • Breast Surgery
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morselli PG, Morellini A (2012) Breast reshaping in gynecomastia by the “pull-through technique”: considerations after 15 years. Eur J Plast Surg 35(5):365–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Narula HS, Carlson HE (2007) Gynecomastia. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 36(2):497–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Simon B, Hoffman S, Kahn S (1973) Classification and surgical correction of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 51(1):48–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hammond DC (2009) Surgical correction of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstruct Surg. 124(1):61e-8e.

  5. Rohrich RJ, Ha RY, Kenkel JM, Adams WP Jr (2003) Classification and management of gynecomastia: defining the role of ultrasound-assisted liposuction. Plastic and reconstructive Surg 111(2):909–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bracaglia R, Fortunato R, Gentileschi S, Seccia A, Farallo E (2004) Our experience with the so-called pull-through technique combined with liposuction for management of gynecomastia. Ann Plast Surg 53(1):22–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ramon Y, Fodor L, Peled IJ, Eldor L, Egozi D, Ullmann Y (2005) Multimodality gynecomastia repair by crosschest power-assisted superficial liposuction combined with endoscopic-assisted pull-through excision. Ann. Plast. Surg. 55:591

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Teimourian B, Perlman R (1983) Surgery for gynaecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 7:155–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis CM (1985) Lipoplasty: treatment for gynaecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 9:287–292

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Courtiss EH (1987) Gynecomastia: analysis of 159 patients and current recommendations for treatment. Plast Reconstr Surg 79:740–750

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gasperoni C, Salgarello M, Gasperoni P (2000) Technical refinements in the surgical treatment of gynaecomastia. Ann Plast Surg 44:455–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim DH, Byun IH, Lee WJ, Rah DK, Kim JY, Lee DW (2016) Surgical management of gynecomastia: subcutaneous mastectomy and liposuction. Aesthet Plast Surg 40:877–884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brown RH, Chang DK, Siy R, Friedman J (2015) Trends in the surgical correction of gynecomastia. Semin Plast Surg 29:122–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Murali B, Vijayaraghavan S, Kishore P, Iyer S, Jimmy M, Sharma M, Paul G, Chavare S (2011) Cross-chest liposuction in gynaecomastia. Indian J Plast Surg Off Publ Assoc Plast Surg India. 44(1):81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Li CC, Fu JP, Chang SC, Chen TM, Chen SG (2012) Surgical treatment of gynecomastia: complications and outcomes. Ann Plast Surg 69(5):510–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tolba AM, Nasr M (2015) Surgical treatment of gynaecomastia: a prospective study in 75 patients. Surg Sci. 6(11):506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ridha H, Colville RJ, Vesely MJ (2009) How happy are patients with their gynaecomastia reduction surgery? J Plast Reconstruct Aesthet Surg 62(11):1473–1478

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boljanovic S, Axelsson CK, Elberg JJ (2003) Surgical treatment of gynecomastia: liposuction combined with subcutaneous mastectomy. Scand J Surg 92:160–162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Yordanov Y, Lasso JM, Shef A (2015) Combined surgical treatment of gynecomastia. Acta Med Bulg. 42(1):43–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Khalil AA, Ibrahim A, Afifi AM (2017) No-drain single incision liposuction pull-through technique for gynecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41(2):298–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lista F, Ahmad J (2008) Power-assisted liposuction and the pull-through technique for the treatment of gynecomastia. Plast Reconst Surg 121(3):740–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hammond DC, Arnold JF, Simon AM, Capraro PA (2003) Combined use of ultrasonic liposuction with the pull-through technique for the treatment of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstruct Surg 112(3):891–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India

    Satyaswarup Tripathy, Abhinav Likhyani, Raman Sharma & Ramesh Kumar Sharma

Authors
  1. Satyaswarup Tripathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhinav Likhyani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raman Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ramesh Kumar Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raman Sharma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest and no financial support with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ethics and research committee of the institute.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tripathy, S., Likhyani, A., Sharma, R. et al. Prospective Analysis and Comparison of Periareolar Excision (Delivery) Technique and Pull-Through Technique for the Treatment of Gynecomastia. Aesth Plast Surg 44, 653–661 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01618-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01618-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation