ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Liposuction Combined with the Pull-Through Technique Versus Arthroscopic Shaver Excision for Gynecomastia.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGynecomastia, a benign proliferation of mammary gland tissue in males, negatively affects body image and can cause psychological distress. Surgical treatments such as subcutaneous mastectomy and liposuction are common but may result in complications like scarring and hematoma. The arthroscopic shaver, originally used for varicose vein and arthroscopic surgeries, has shown promise for soft tissue removal. This study compares the outcomes of liposuction combined with the pull-through technique and the arthroscopic shaver in gynecomastia treatment.
methodsPatients with gynecomastia and received surgical treatment were enrolled in the study retrospectively. One group of patients underwent liposuction after tumescent solution infiltration into the breast tissue and pull-through technique to remove residual breast glands through a single periareolar incision. The other group of patients underwent breast tissue removal using the arthroscopic shaver. Comparison of postoperative complications was made between the two groups.
resultsAmong the enrolled patients, 20 patients underwent the pull-through technique with liposuction and 31 patients underwent arthroscopic shaver treatment. Common complications such as hematoma, ecchymosis, and residual irregular fat were not observed in the pull-though group, while higher rates of hematoma and ecchymosis were reported in the arthroscopic shaver group. The liposuction amount showed no significant difference between patients with versus without hematoma or ecchymosis.
conclusionsThe pull-through technique with liposuction provides excellent results for gynecomastia treatment with minimal complications. The arthroscopic shaver is also effective but associated with higher rates of hematoma and ecchymosis, requiring greater postoperative vigilance. 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42752664What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.