Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023
A Retrospective Review of Arthroscopic Shaver Utilization in Adolescent Gynecomastia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Belza Caitlyn C, Blum Jessica D, Neubauer Daniel, Reid Christopher M, Ortiz-Pomales Yan T, Lance Samuel H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study compares the arthroscopic shaver and liposuction with other established methods for treatment of adolescent gynecomastia.
METHODS: Surgical management was via four operative techniques: open excision, open excision/liposuction, arthroscopic shaver/liposuction, or open excision and free nipple graft. Data were collected and compared using independent t tests, linear regression models, and one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Patients were stratified by Rohrich grades I -II (low) (N = 47) or III -IV (high) (N = 13). The groups were similar in age (P = 0.662) with lower BMI in the low-grade group (x̄ = 25.36 ± 2.1) vs. high-grade group (x̄ = 27.62 ± 4.0; P < 0.001). The low-grade group showed no significant difference in operative time across surgical techniques with decreased mean operative time in the high-grade group using the arthroscopic shaver technique (x̄ = 55.8 ± 7.56) compared with open excision (x̄ = 70.83 ± 11.02, P = 0.04), open excision plus liposuction (x̄ = 89.5 ± 24.93, P = 24.93), and open excision plus free nipple graft (x̄ = 81.67 ± 19.11, P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in complication (P = 0.84) or reoperation (P = 0.68) rates across surgical techniques regardless of grade.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the arthroscopic shaver is safe and effective for treatment of both low- and high-grade gynecomastia in adolescents. The results yielded a similar incidence of complications and reoperation across surgical techniques, and the arthroscopic shaver approach demonstrated a shorter operative time compared with other techniques for high-grade gynecomastia.
METHODS: Surgical management was via four operative techniques: open excision, open excision/liposuction, arthroscopic shaver/liposuction, or open excision and free nipple graft. Data were collected and compared using independent t tests, linear regression models, and one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Patients were stratified by Rohrich grades I -II (low) (N = 47) or III -IV (high) (N = 13). The groups were similar in age (P = 0.662) with lower BMI in the low-grade group (x̄ = 25.36 ± 2.1) vs. high-grade group (x̄ = 27.62 ± 4.0; P < 0.001). The low-grade group showed no significant difference in operative time across surgical techniques with decreased mean operative time in the high-grade group using the arthroscopic shaver technique (x̄ = 55.8 ± 7.56) compared with open excision (x̄ = 70.83 ± 11.02, P = 0.04), open excision plus liposuction (x̄ = 89.5 ± 24.93, P = 24.93), and open excision plus free nipple graft (x̄ = 81.67 ± 19.11, P = 0.05). There was no significant difference in complication (P = 0.84) or reoperation (P = 0.68) rates across surgical techniques regardless of grade.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the arthroscopic shaver is safe and effective for treatment of both low- and high-grade gynecomastia in adolescents. The results yielded a similar incidence of complications and reoperation across surgical techniques, and the arthroscopic shaver approach demonstrated a shorter operative time compared with other techniques for high-grade gynecomastia.