Conventional versus ultrasound-assisted liposuction in gynaecomastia surgery: A 13-year review

SummaryBackgroundNumerous surgical techniques exist for gynaecomastia treatment. Although ultrasound-assisted liposuction (UAL) is thought to be more effective than conventional liposuction, to date there remains no objective and direct comparison of the two modalities. Hence, a comparative study was performed of a single surgeon's experience over 13 years using two definitive parameters, namely intraoperative conversion to open excision and postoperative revisional surgery rates.MethodsAll gynaecomastia patients treated with UAL or conventional liposuction (1999–2012) were retrospectively studied. UAL was only available in the private sector and was used for all such patients with no other selection or exclusion criteria.ResultsA total of 219 patients (384 breasts) with a mean age of 29 years (range 12–74) were evaluated. UAL was utilised in 24% of breasts (47 patients, 91 breasts). Compared with conventional liposuction, UAL had significantly lower rates of intraoperative conversion to open excision (25% vs. 39%; p < 0.05) and postoperative revision (2% vs. 19%; p < 0.001) using Fisher's exact test. The haematoma rate for each technique was 1%.ConclusionUAL is a more effective treatment modality for gynaecomastia than conventional liposuction as determined by intraoperative conversion to open surgery and subsequent need for revision.