Background: Gynecomastia is a common disease that is prevalent across all age groups of boys and men. Although benign in nature, it can lead to psychological and social distress, prompting affected patients to seek medical attention. Management strategies include observation and drug therapy, yet surgical procedures remain the hallmark of treatment. The goal of this study was to analyze patient demographics, outcomes, and complication rates of gynecomastia surgery in a large multi-institutional cohort. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program adult and pediatric databases to produce two cohorts that underwent gynecomastia surgical repair. The two populations were compared for comorbidities, perioperative details, and complication rates. Multivariate analyses helped detect risk factors associated with adverse events. Results: A total of 204 pediatric and 1583 adult male patients were identified in our analysis. Mean ages were 15.8 and 39.6 years, respectively. A BMI of 28.2 in the latter cohort revealed an overweight adult population. Preoperative comorbidities (0.0–4.9% in children, 0.0–6.4% in adults) and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (ASA 1 + 2: 98.5 and 82.7%) symbolized a healthy population. Procedures were subsequently performed mostly as outpatient (84.3 and 93.9%) and with short hospitalization durations (0.27 and 0.06 days). Our results demonstrated low surgical (3.9 and 1.9%) and medical (0.0 and 0.3%) complications within the standardized 30-day postoperative period. Children and adolescents, however, required double mean operative times compared to adults (111.3 vs 56.7 min). Conclusion: Operative gynecomastia treatment remains a safe treatment modality across all age groups. Patients with known preoperative medical or surgical comorbidities necessitate more extensive perioperative assessment and monitoring. Level of Evidence III: 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.
ASJC Scopus subject areas