Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07485309

Periareolar Excision vs Pull-Through in Gynecomastia

This prospective randomized controlled trial compares periareolar excision and pull-through techniques in 64 patients with Simon Grade I-IIb gynecomastia. Patients were randomized 1:1 and followed for 6 months. The primary outcome was total patient satisfaction measured using the Rasch-transformed BODY-Q Chest Module. Secondary outcomes included anthropometric measurements, recovery parameters, complication rates, and blinded aesthetic evaluation. A formal interaction analysis assessed whether surgical superiority differed according to disease severity.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–50 year

Sex eligibility

Male

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Kafr El-Sheikh University Hospital

Kafr ash Shaykh, Kafr el-Sheikh Governorate, 33516, Egypt

About this study

Gynecomastia is a benign proliferation of fibroglandular tissue in the male breast that alters chest contour and may significantly affect body image, confidence, and psychosocial well-being. Although many cases resolve spontaneously during adolescence, a proportion persist and require surgical correction. Multiple surgical techniques have been described, including traditional periareolar excision and minimally invasive approaches such as the pull-through technique combined with liposuction. However, consensus remains limited regarding the optimal surgical technique, particularly across different grades of gynecomastia severity.

This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Plastic Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kafr El-Sheikh University, Egypt, to compare outcomes between periareolar excision and the pull-through technique in patients with Simon Grade I-IIb gynecomastia. The study aimed to determine whether surgical effectiveness differs according to disease severity and tissue phenotype.

Sixty-four male patients aged 18-50 years with persistent gynecomastia were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either periareolar glandular excision or the pull-through technique following liposuction. Randomization was performed using a computer-generated sequence with allocation concealment through sealed opaque envelopes. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia on an outpatient basis.

The primary outcome was patient satisfaction measured at 6 months postoperatively using the Rasch-transformed BODY-Q Chest Module. Secondary outcomes included domain-level BODY-Q scores, objective anthropometric measurements, postoperative complications, recovery parameters (including time to return to work and hospital stay), glandular specimen weight, and blinded aesthetic evaluation based on standardized postoperative photographs assessed by independent plastic surgeons.

Statistical analysis included comparisons between groups and interaction analysis to determine whether treatment effects varied according to Simon grade. The study was designed to provide evidence supporting phenotype-based surgical decision-making in gynecomastia management.

This trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The study was initiated prior to institutional establishment of a formal clinical trial registration pathway, and retrospective registration was completed to ensure transparency and compliance with international reporting standards.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Male patients aged 18 to 50 years
  • Clinically diagnosed Simon Grade I-IIb gynecomastia
  • Persistent gynecomastia for more than 18 months
  • Candidates for surgical correction under general anesthesia
  • Provided written informed consent to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

  • Simon Grade III gynecomastia requiring skin excision
  • Gynecomastia secondary to untreated endocrine disorders
  • Chronic hepatic or renal disease
  • Suspected or confirmed breast malignancy
  • Previous gynecomastia surgery
  • Active infection
  • Coagulopathy or bleeding disorders
  • Contraindications to general anesthesia

Treatment and study plan

Periareolar Excision

Procedure

Surgical correction of gynecomastia using a semicircular inferior periareolar incision to allow direct glandular excision following liposuction. A thin subareolar tissue layer is preserved to prevent nipple depression and maintain contour.

Pull-Through Technique

Procedure

Minimally invasive surgical correction of gynecomastia using liposuction followed by glandular extraction through the liposuction incision using the pull-through technique with controlled traction and segmental excision.

Primary outcomes

  1. Total Patient Satisfaction (BODY-Q Chest Module)

    Time frame: 6 months postoperative

    Patient-reported satisfaction with chest appearance measured using the Rasch-transformed BODY-Q Chest Module questionnaire. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction following gynecomastia surgery.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Domain-level BODY-Q Scores

    Time frame: 6 months postoperative

    Assessment of specific BODY-Q domains including chest appearance, nipple aesthetics, and scar perception after gynecomastia surgery.

  2. Change in Chest Anthropometric Measurements

    Time frame: Preoperative and 6 months postoperative

    Change from baseline in chest anthropometric parameters including chest circumference, nipple-to-suprasternal notch distance, nipple-to-acromion distance, nipple-to-midclavicular distance, and breast projection, measured in centimeters (cm).

  3. Number of Participants With Postoperative Complications

    Time frame: Within 6 months postoperative

    Number of participants experiencing postoperative complications including hematoma, seroma, infection, or need for revision surgery.

  4. Length of Postoperative Hospital Stay

    Time frame: Within 30 days postoperative

    Duration of hospital stay following gynecomastia surgery, measured in days.

  5. Postoperative Pain Score

    Time frame: Postoperative day 1

    Postoperative pain assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates worst imaginable pain.

  6. Time to Return to Work

    Time frame: Up to 6 months postoperative

    Time from surgery to return to normal work or daily activities, measured in days.

  7. Blinded Surgeon Aesthetic Evaluation Score

    Time frame: 6 months postoperative

    Independent aesthetic evaluation of postoperative chest contour using standardized postoperative photographs assessed by board-certified plastic surgeons blinded to treatment allocation. Aesthetic outcome will be rated using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates a very poor aesthetic outcome and 5 indicates excellent aesthetic outcome.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Kafrelsheikh University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Periareolar Excision Versus Pull-Through Techniques in Simon Grade I-IIb Gynecomastia: A Phenotype-Dependent Outcome Analysis

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2025
Study completion
2025
First posted
Mar 20, 2026
Registry last updated
Mar 20, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.