Advertisement

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 616–624 | Cite as

3D Mammometric Changes in the Treatment of Idiopathic Gynecomastia

  • Konstantin C. KobanEmail author
  • Konstantin Frank
  • Lucas Etzel
  • Thilo L. Schenck
  • Riccardo E. Giunta
Original Article Breast Surgery
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Three-dimensional surface imaging (3DSI) has shown promise for plastic surgeons to objectively assess changes in body contour and breast volume.

Objectives

To assess the surgical outcome after bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy (BSM) and water jet-assisted liposuction (WAL) as treatment for idiopathic gynecomastia, using 3DSI to document changes regarding nipple–areolar complex (NAC) and breast volume.

Methods

Thirty male patients (Simon II A to B) receiving BSM and WAL were enrolled. Eight subjects received additional mastopexy and NAC reduction. Use of a Vectra 3D Imaging System® before and 6 months after surgery provided data regarding changes of NAC placement and NAC and breast dimensions. The sum volume of intraoperatively approximated lipoaspirate before and after centrifugation and mastectomy specimens quantified using water displacement were compared with 3D-assessed differences in volume.

Results

When compared to the NAC dimensions defined during surgery, patients receiving NAC reductions showed nonsignificant postoperative changes in NAC dimensions. Patients without additional mastopexy showed a significant (p < 0.001) vertical (15.7 ± 14.3%) and horizontal (17.1 ± 15.0%) reduction in NAC diameter. 3D volume changes (92.8 ± 26.4 mL) showed significant differences (p < 0.001) 6 months after surgery compared to the intraoperatively measured lipoaspirate before (182 ± 54.5 mL) and after (120 ± 34.6 mL) centrifugation.

Conclusion

Although it is clear that patient satisfaction must remain the prime focus of surgical body contouring, 3DSI has proven valuable to objectively demonstrate both the anticipated outcome and further findings regarding treatment of idiopathic gynecomastia.

Level of Evidence IV

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.

Keywords

Gynecomastia 3D surface imaging Liposuction Volumetry Nipple–areolar complex 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article. None of the figures or tables have been previously published, and the copyright is held by the authors.

Ethical Approval

All procedures in our study involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the standards of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich ethical committee (Reference Number 266-13) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants signed an informed consent approved by the institutional ethics committee.

References

  1. 1.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2016) Cosmetic plastic surgery statistics Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shulman O, Badani E, Wolf Y, Hauben DJ (2001) Appropriate location of the nipple-areola complex in males. Plast Reconstr Surg 108(2):348–351Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mett TR, Krezdorn N, Luketina R et al (2017) Optimal positioning of the nipple-areola complex in men using the mohrenheim-estimated-tangential-tracking-line (METT-Line): an intuitive approach. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(6):1295–1302Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi BS, Lee SR, Byun GY, Hwang SB, Koo BH (2017) The characteristics and short-term surgical outcomes of adolescent gynecomastia. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(5):1011–1021Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tepper OM, Small K, Rudolph L, Choi M, Karp N (2006) Virtual 3-dimensional modeling as a valuable adjunct to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery. Am J Surg 192(4):548–551Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schanz S, Schreiber G, Zitzmann M, Krapohl BD, Horch R, Köhn F-M (2017) S1 guidelines: gynecomastia in adults. JDDG J der Dtsch Dermatologischen Gesellschaft 15(4):465–472Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zavlin D, Jubbal KT, Friedman JD, Echo A (2017) Complications and outcomes after gynecomastia surgery: analysis of 204 pediatric and 1583 adult cases from a National Multi-center Database. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(4):761–767Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardenas-Camarena L, Dorado C, Guerrero MT et al (2017) Surgical masculinization of the breast: clinical classification and surgical procedures. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(6):1477Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta V, Yeslev M, Winocour J et al (2017) Aesthetic breast surgery and concomitant procedures: incidence and risk factors for major complications in 73,608 cases. Aesthet Surg J 37(5):515–527Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fricke A, Lehner GM, Stark GB, Penna V (2017) Long-term follow-up of recurrence and patient satisfaction after surgical treatment of gynecomastia. Aesthet Plast Surg 41(3):491–498Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Linming F, Wei H, Anqi L et al (2017) Comparison of two skin imaging analysis instruments: The VISIA from Canfield vs the ANTERA 3D CS from Miravex. Skin Res Technol 24:3–8Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lowe P, Lowe NJ (2007) 3D photography and lip filler: a novel assay. J Cosmet Laser Ther 9(4):237–240Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tzou CHJ, Artner NM, Pona I et al (2014) Comparison of three-dimensional surface-imaging systems. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67(4):489–497Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Menezes M, Rosati R, Ferrario VF, Sforza C (2010) Accuracy and reproducibility of a 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetric imaging system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 68(9):2129–2135Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garibyan L, Sipprell WH, Jalian HR et al (2014) Three-dimensional volumetric quantification of fat loss following cryolipolysis. Lasers Surg Med 46(2):75–80Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metzler P, Sun Y, Zemann W et al (2014) Validity of the 3D VECTRA photogrammetric surface imaging system for cranio-maxillofacial anthropometric measurements. Oral Maxillofac Surg 18(3):297–304Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koban KC, Leitsch S, Holzbach T, Volkmer E, Metz PM, Giunta RE (2014) 3D Bilderfassung und Analyse in der Plastischen Chirurgie mit Smartphone und Tablet: eine Alternative zu professionellen Systemen? Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 46(2):97–104Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koban KC, Schenck T, Metz PM et al (2016) Auf dem Weg zur objektiven Evaluation von Form, Volumen und Symmetrie in der Plastischen Chirurgie mittels intraoperativer 3D Scans. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 48(2):78–84Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chae MP, Hunter-Smith DJ, Spychal RT, Rozen WM (2014) 3D volumetric analysis for planning breast reconstructive surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 146(2):457–460Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Esme DL, Bucksch A, Beekman WH (2009) Three-dimensional laser imaging as a valuable tool for specifying changes in breast shape after augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 33(2):191–195Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chae MP, Rozen WM, Spychal RT, Hunter-smith DJ (2016) Breast volumetric analysis for aesthetic planning in breast reconstruction: a literature review of techniques. Gland Surg 5(2):212–226Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Heras Ciechomski P, Constantinescu M, Garcia J et al (2012) Development and implementation of a web-enabled 3D consultation tool for breast augmentation surgery based on 3D-image reconstruction of 2D pictures. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e21Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Connell RL, Stevens RJG, Harris PA, Rusby JE (2015) Review of three-dimensional (3D) surface imaging for oncoplastic, reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Breast 24(4):331–342Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simon BE, Hoffman S, Kahn S (1973) Classification and surgical correction of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 51(1):48–52Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rohrich RJ, Ha RY, Kenkel JM, Adams WP (2003) Classification and management of gynecomastia: defining the role of ultrasound-assisted liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 111(2):909–923Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yin S, Luan J, Fu S, Zhuang Q (2016) Is centrifugation necessary for processing lipoaspirate harvested via water-jet force assisted technique before grafting? Evidence of lipoaspirate concentration with enhanced fat graft survival. Ann Plast Surg 77(4):477–484Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tepper OM, Small KH, Unger JG et al (2009) 3D analysis of breast augmentation defines operative changes and their relationship to implant dimensions. Ann Plast Surg 62(5):570–575Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cordova A, Moschella F (2008) Algorithm for clinical evaluation and surgical treatment of gynaecomastia. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 61(1):41–49Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee BH, Kwon YJ, Park JW, Hwang JH, Kim KS, Lee SY (2014) Gynecomastia surgery is associated with improved nipple location in young Korean patients. Arch Plast Surg 41(6):748–752Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keskin M, Sutcu M, Hanci M, Cigsar B (2017) Reduction of the areolar diameter after ultrasound-assisted liposuction for gynecomastia. Ann Plast Surg 79(2):135–138Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eder M, Waldenfels FV, Sichtermann M et al (2011) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast contour and volume changes following subpectoral augmentation mammaplasty over 6 months. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 64(9):1152–1160Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kovacs L, Eder M, Zimmermann A et al (2012) Three-dimensional evaluation of breast augmentation and the influence of anatomic and round implants on operative breast shape changes. Aesthet Plast Surg 36(4):879–887Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ji K, Luan J, Liu C et al (2014) A prospective study of breast dynamic morphological changes after dual-plane augmentation mammaplasty with 3D scanning technique. PLoS ONE 9(3):e93010Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venkataram J (2008) Tumescent liposuction: a review. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 1(2):49–57Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hanke CW, Bernstein G, Bullock S (1995) Safety of tumescent liposuction in 15,336 patients. National survey results. Dermatol Surg. 21(5):459–462Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhu M, Cohen SR, Hicok KC et al (2013) Comparison of three different fat graft preparation methods: gravity separation, centrifugation, and simultaneous washing with filtration in a closed system. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(4):873–880.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31828276e9
  37. 37.
    Dixit VV, Wagh MS (2013) Unfavourable outcomes of liposuction and their management. Indian J Plast Surg 46(2):377Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kasielska A, Antoszewski B (2013) Surgical management of gynecomastia. Ann Plast Surg 71(5):471–475Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morselli PG, Morellini A (2012) Breast reshaping in gynecomastia by the “pull-through technique”: considerations after 15 years. Eur J Plast Surg 35(5):365–371Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wolter A, Scholz T, Diedrichson J, Liebau J (2013) Chirurgische Therapie der Gynäkomastie: Ein Algorithmus. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir 45(2):73–79Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Hand, Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, University HospitalLMU MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations