Patient-reported outcome measures following gynecomastia correction: a systematic review
- 66 Downloads
A patient's perspective is usually measured by patient-reported outcome instruments, which are becoming increasingly relevant to current research on clinical outcomes. The aims of our review were to identify studies that evaluated patient satisfaction after gynecomastia correction, analyze existing questionnaires, and summarize the development, psychometric properties and content of the questionnaires.
A multistep search of the web-based PubMed database was performed. Each potential study was examined by 2 independent reviewers for adherence to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The identified studies were categorized by title, authors, date, study type, number of patients, surgical procedures, complications, mean age, mean duration of follow-up, and outcome measurements. We summarized all the questionnaires used.
Our search generated a total of 711 articles; we selected 28 studies for further appraisal. Eight studies were excluded based on the content of the abstracts, and an additional 8 studies were excluded based on the content of the complete article. Thus, we performed a systematic review of the 12 remaining studies. All studies identified from the literature review were assessed to determine the type of surgery used and whether or not the questionnaire used to analyze patient satisfaction had been validated. A total of 847 patients were included in these studies, which reported more than 100 complications.
The rate of patient satisfaction was high, although most studies did not use validated or quantifiable evaluation methods for assessment of satisfaction. A new self-assessment tool, which should include functional, psycho-relational, and cosmetic components, is needed to measure satisfaction and quality of life in patients who have undergone gynecomastia correction.
Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study
KeywordsGynecomastia Body image Patient-reported outcome Questionnaire Plastic surgery Quality of life Satisfaction
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Mauro Barone, A. Cogliandro, M. Morelli Coppola, G. Cassotta, N. Di Stefano, V. Tambone, and P. Persichetti declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was not required because this was a review study.
- 1.Kinsella C Jr, Landfair A, Rottgers SA et al (2012) The psychological burden of idiopathic adolescent gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1–7Google Scholar
- 6.Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M et al (2010) PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 19:1087–1096Google Scholar
- 7.Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL et al (2009) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 123:1819–1827Google Scholar
- 8.Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S et al (2007) Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg 120:823–837Google Scholar
- 11.U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. FDA web site, 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index
- 12.Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A et al (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205Google Scholar
- 13.Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B (1993) SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical CenterGoogle Scholar
- 21.Cogliandro A, Barone M, Cassotta G, Tenna S, Cagli B, Persichetti P (2017) Patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes following 414 breast reductions: application of BREAST-Q. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41:245–249Google Scholar
- 23.Davanço RA, Sabino Neto M, Garcia EB, Matsuoka PK, Huijsmans JP, Ferreira LM (2009) Quality of life in the surgical treatment of gynecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33:514–517Google Scholar
- 25.Fricke A, Lehner GM, Stark GB, Penna V (2017) Long-term follow-up of recurrence and patient satisfaction after surgical treatment of gynecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 41:491–498Google Scholar
- 30.Kim DH, Byun IH, Lee WJ, Rah DK, Kim JY, Lee DW (2016) Surgical management of gynecomastia: subcutaneous mastectomy and liposuction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 40:877–884Google Scholar