Advertisement

European Journal of Plastic Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 109–118 | Cite as

Patient-reported outcome measures following gynecomastia correction: a systematic review

  • Mauro Barone
  • Annalisa Cogliandro
  • Marco Morelli Coppola
  • Gabriella Cassotta
  • Nicola Di Stefano
  • Vittoradolfo Tambone
  • Paolo Persichetti
Review

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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

Keywords

Gynecomastia Body image Patient-reported outcome Questionnaire Plastic surgery Quality of life Satisfaction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

None

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.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was not required because this was a review study.

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    McGrath MH, Mukerji S (2000) Plastic surgery and the teenage patient. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 13:105–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ridha H, Colville RJ, Vesely MJ (2009) How happy are patients with their gynaecomastia reduction surgery? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 62:1473–1478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wassersug RJ, Oliffe JL (2009) The social context for psychological distress from iatrogenic gynecomastia with suggestions for its management. J Sex Med 6:989–1000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, La Monaca G, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2015) Cognitive investigation study of patients admitted for cosmetic surgery: information, expectations, and consent for treatment. Arch Plast Surg 42:46–51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:1807–1811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures following transsexual surgery. Aesthet Plast Surg 41:700–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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. 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
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baker R (1990) Development of a questionnaire to assess patients’ satisfaction with consultations in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 40:487–490PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware JE Jr (2000) SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:3130–3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson RC, Cunningham B, Tafesse E, Lenderking WR (2006) Validation of the breast evaluation questionnaire for use with breast surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:597–602CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasielska A, Antoszewski B (2011) Effect of operative treatment on psychosocial problems of men with gynecomastia. Pol Przegl Chir 83:614–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fagerlund A, Lewin R, Rufolo G, Elander A, Santanelli di Pompeo F, Selvaggi G (2015) Gynecomastia: a systematic review. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 49:311–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Innocenti A, Melita D, Mori F, Ciancio F, Innocenti M (2017) Management of gynecomastia in patients with different body types: considerations on 312 consecutive treated cases. Ann Plast Surg 78:492–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL (2010) Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 26:303–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Nuzzi LC, Cerrato FE, Erickson CR, Webb ML, Rosen H, Walsh EM, DiVasta AD, Greene AK, Labow BI (2013) Psychosocial impact of adolescent gynecomastia: a prospective case-control study. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:890–896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Kasielska-Trojan A, Antoszewski B (2017) Gynecomastia surgery-impact on life quality: a prospective case-control study. Ann Plast Surg 78:264–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fruhstorfer BH, Malata CM (2003) A systematic approach to the surgical treatment of gynaecomastia. Br J Plast Surg 56:237–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gabra HO, Morabito A, Bianchi A, Bowen J (2004) Gynaecomastia in the adolescent: a surgically relevant condition. Eur J Pediatr Surg 14:3–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibrahiem SM (2016) Severe gynecomastia: new technique using superior pedicle NAC flap through a circumareolar approach. Ann Plast Surg 76:645–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Gusenoff JA, Coon D, Rubin JP (2008) Pseudogynecomastia after massive weight loss: detectability of technique, patient satisfaction, and classification. Plast Reconstr Surg 122:1301–1311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mauro Barone
    • 1
  • Annalisa Cogliandro
    • 1
  • Marco Morelli Coppola
    • 1
  • Gabriella Cassotta
    • 1
  • Nicola Di Stefano
    • 2
  • Vittoradolfo Tambone
    • 2
  • Paolo Persichetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit of Plastic Surgery and Dermatology, Department of MedicineCampus Bio-Medico University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Philosophy of Scientific and Technological PracticeCampus Bio-Medico University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations