Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 546–547 | Cite as

Evaluation of Glandular Liposculpture as a Single Treatment for Grades I and II Gynecomastia

  • Rosa SalzilloEmail author
  • Mauro Barone
  • Annalisa Cogliandro
  • Emile List
  • Paolo Persichetti
Letter to the Editor

Level of Evidence V 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

Dear Editors,

We read with great interest the article “Evaluation of glandular liposculpture as a single treatment for grades I and II gynecomastia” by Islam Abdelrahman et al. [1] aimed at evaluating the outcome of liposuction and glandular liposculpturing as a single treatment for the management of grades I and II gynecomastia. We compliment the authors on the excellent results shown, but we have some issues to address with them.

The authors state that the consistency of the breasts and the position of the nipple–areola complex were examined preoperatively with clinical examination only. In our practice, we always perform breast ultrasound to investigate and accurately study the glandular, fat or mixed consistency of the...


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Abdelrahman I, Steinvall I, Mossaad B, Sjoberg F, Elmasry M (2018) Evaluation of glandular liposculpture as a single treatment for grades I and II gynaecomastia. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(5):1222–1230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ridha H, Colville RJ, Vesely MJ (2009) How happy are patients with their gynaecomastia reduction surgery? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62(11):1473–1478. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cogliandro A, Persichetti P, Ghilardi G, Moss TP, Barone M, Piccinocchi G, Ricci G, Vitali M, Giuliani A, Tambone V (2016) How to assess appearance distress and motivation in plastic surgery candidates: Italian validation of Derriford Appearance Scale 59 (DAS 59). Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 20:3732–3737PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHO (World Health Organization) (2009) Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Accessed Sept 2018
  5. 5.
    Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P (2005) Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 8(2):94–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Salzillo R, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2018) Patient-reported satisfaction following post-bariatric surgery: a systematic review. Aesthet Plast Surg 42(5):1320–1330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Tsangaris E, Salzillo R, Morelli Coppola M, Ciarrocchi S, Brunetti B, Tenna S, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2018) Treatment of severe gynecomastia after massive weight loss: analysis of long-term outcomes measured with the italian version of the BODY-Q. Aesthet Plast Surg. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Persichetti P, Berloco M, Casadei RM, Marangi GF, Di Lella F, Nobili AM (2001) Gynecomastia and the complete circumareolar approach in the surgical management of skin redundancy. Plast Reconstr Surg 107(4):948–954CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery “Campus Bio-Medico”University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Utrecht Medisch CentrumUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations