Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 3/2022

26-10-2021 | Liposuction | Original Article

Patients Decision-Making Characteristics Affects Gynecomastia Treatment Satisfaction: A Multicenter Study Using the BODY-Q Chest Module

Authors: Mads Gustaf Jørgensen, Bu Youn Cho, Frederik Gulmark Hansen, Volker-Jürgen Schmidt, Jens Ahm Sørensen, Navid Mohamadpour Toyserkani

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient satisfaction is the most critical outcome in gynecomastia treatment. However, patient satisfaction may be affected by the patient's decision-making trait, such as exhaustively searching for the best outcome or being content with an outcome that satisfies a preconceived requirement.

Objective

To assess whether patient's decision-making characteristic affect their satisfaction with gynecomastia treatment.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study including patients treated for gynecomastia between January 2009 and December 2019 at two tertiary hospitals in Denmark. Alive patients were sent the BODY-Q: Chest module, the SF-36 questionnaire, and the Maximizer/Satisficer decision-making survey. Patients were classified as Maximizers if they scored more than 40 points on the Maximizer/Satisficer survey. Percentage score differences (PDs) in quality of life scales were calculated between Maximizers and Satisficers.

Results

In total, 192 gynecomastia patients were included in this study and classified as Maximizers (n = 152) or Satisficers (n = 40). Maximizers were younger and more had gynecomastia following abuse of anabolic steroids than Satisficers (p < 0.05). With respect to bodily satisfaction, Maximizers showed significantly worse satisfaction with nipples (PDs: − 12.98%), psychological function (PDs: − 13.68%) and social function (PDs: − 8.77%, p < 0.05). In addition, Maximizers had significantly worse emotional role functioning (− 11.03%), vitality (PDs: − 11.72%) and mental health (PDs: − 10.00%, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Patients exhibiting maximizing-type decision-making characteristics have worse satisfaction with gynecomastia treatment and poorer psychosocial health. This information may facilitate patient counseling and alignment of treatment expectations.

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Koch T, Bräuner EV, Busch AS et al (2020) Marked increase in incident gynecomastia: a 20-year national registry study, 1998 to 2017. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105(10):3134–3140CrossRef
2.
Rew L, Young C, Harrison T et al (2015) A systematic review of literature on psychosocial aspects of gynecomastia in adolescents and young men. J Adolesc 43:206–212PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Schwartz B (2004) The paradox of choice: why more is less, 1st edn. Ecco, New York
5.
Honigman RJ, Phillips KA, Castle DJ (2004) A review of psychosocial outcomes for patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(4):1229–1237PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet (London, England). 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef
7.
Thygesen LC, Daasnes C, Thaulow I et al (2011) Introduction to Danish (nationwide) registers on health and social issues: Structure, access, legislation, and archiving. Scand J Public Health 39(7_suppl):12–16PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R et al (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381PubMedCrossRef
10.
Jørgensen MG, Albertsdottir E, Dalaei F et al (2021) Age and body mass index affect patient satisfaction following reduction mammoplasty: a multicenter study using BREAST-Q. Aesthetic Surg J. 41(6):NP336–NP345CrossRef
11.
Ebert JF, Huibers L, Christensen B et al (2018) Paper-or web-based questionnaire invitations as a method for data collection: cross-sectional comparative study of differences in response rate, completeness of data, and financial cost. J Med Internet Res. 20(1):e24PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Klassen AF, Kaur M, Poulsen L et al (2018) Development of the BODY-Q chest module evaluating outcomes following chest contouring surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 142(6):1600–1608PubMedCrossRef
13.
Lorenzen MM, Poulsen L, Bo Thomsen J et al (2018) Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q Chest Module. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 52(6):343–346PubMedCrossRef
14.
Poulsen L, Rose M, Klassen A et al (2017) Danish translation and linguistic validation of the BODY-Q: a description of the process. Eur J Plast Surg 40(1):29–38PubMedCrossRef
15.
Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T et al (1998) Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):1001–1011PubMedCrossRef
16.
Bjorner JB, Thunedborg K, Kristensen TS et al (1998) The Danish SF-36 health survey: translation and preliminary validity studies. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):991–999PubMedCrossRef
17.
Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE et al (1998) Differential item functioning in the danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):1189–1202PubMedCrossRef
18.
Arunachalam B, Henneberry SR, Lusk JL et al (2009) An empirical investigation into the excessive-choice effect. Am J Agric Econ 91(3):810–825CrossRef
19.
Lu LY, Sheikholeslami N, Alokozai A et al (2019) The role of patient research in patient trust in their physician. J Hand Surg Am. 44(7):617.e1-617.e9CrossRef
20.
21.
22.
Kasielska-Trojan A, Antoszewski B (2017) Gynecomastia surgery—impact on life quality. Ann Plast Surg 78(3):264–268PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ridha H, Colville RJI, Vesely MJJ (2009) How happy are patients with their gynaecomastia reduction surgery? J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 62(11):1473–1478CrossRef
24.
Nuzzi LC, Firriolo JM, Pike CM et al (2018) The effect of surgical treatment for gynecomastia on quality of life in adolescents. J Adolesc Heal 63(6):759–765CrossRef
25.
Dyer C (2012) Clinical negligence claims against plastic surgeons rise “significantly.” BMJ 344(jan10 1):e298–e298PubMedCrossRef
26.
Brafa A, Campana M, Grimaldi L et al (2011) Management of gynecomastia: an outcome analysis in a multicentric study. Minerva Chir 66(5):375–384PubMed
27.
Innocenti A, Melita D, Mori F et al (2017) Management of gynecomastia in patients with different body types. Ann Plast Surg 78(5):492–496PubMedCrossRef
28.
Matera C, Nerini A, Stefanile C (2018) Why are men interested in cosmetic surgery procedures? examining the role of different forms of peer influence, social comparison, internalization, and body dissatisfaction. Body Image 26:74–77PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Alderman A et al (2016) Self-report scales to measure expectations and appearance-related psychosocial distress in patients seeking cosmetic treatments. Aesthetic Surg J 36(9):1068–1078CrossRef
31.
Nuzzi LC, Cerrato FE, Erikson CR et al (2013) Psychosocial impact of adolescent gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 131(4):890–896PubMedCrossRef
32.
Xu B, Mu D, Yang Y et al (2020) Endoscopic axillary approach improves patient satisfaction of gynecomastia subcutaneous mastectomy: a cross-sectional study using the BODY-Q chest module. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(6):2011–2020PubMedCrossRef
33.
34.
Blau M, Hazani R (2015) Correction of gynecomastia in body builders and patients with good physique. Plast Reconstr Surg 135(2):425–432PubMedCrossRef
35.
Fruhstorfer BH, Malata CM (2003) A systematic approach to the surgical treatment of gynaecomastia. Br J Plast Surg 56(3):237–246PubMedCrossRef
36.
Davanço RAS, Sabino Neto M, Garcia ÉB et al (2009) Quality of life in the surgical treatment of gynecomastia. Aesthetic Plast Surg 33(4):514–517PubMedCrossRef
37.
Juhl AA, Damsgaard TE, O’Connor M et al (2017) Personality traits as predictors of quality of life and body image after breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg - Glob Open. 5(5):e1341PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Oliver JD, Menapace DC, Staab JP et al (2019) How patient decision-making characteristics affect satisfaction in facial plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 144(6):1487–1497PubMedCrossRef
39.
Vojvodic M, Xu FZ, Cai R et al (2019) Anabolic-androgenic steroid use among gynecomastia patients. Ann Plast Surg 83(3):258–263PubMedCrossRef
40.
Kaoutzanis C, Schneeberger SJ, Wormer B et al (2020) Current perceptions of the aesthetically ideal position and size of the male nipple-areola complex. Aesthetic Surg J. 40(5):NP228–NP237CrossRef
41.
Offodile A, Prigerson H, Craft R et al (2014) Impact of personality traits on choice and perceptions of autologous breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 31(02):139–144PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patients Decision-Making Characteristics Affects Gynecomastia Treatment Satisfaction: A Multicenter Study Using the BODY-Q Chest Module
Authors
Mads Gustaf Jørgensen
Bu Youn Cho
Frederik Gulmark Hansen
Volker-Jürgen Schmidt
Jens Ahm Sørensen
Navid Mohamadpour Toyserkani
Publication date
26-10-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-021-02633-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 3/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Risk Comparison Using Autologous Dermal Flap and Absorbable Breast Mesh on Patient Undergoing Subcutaneous Mastectomy with Immediate Breast Reconstruction

Letter to the Editor

Characterization of Contractile Forces Generated by Stretch Marks Fibroblasts: In Vitro Study.

Innovative Techniques

Influence of Marker Number and Position on Accuracy of Breast Measurement With Three-Dimensional Camera

Original Article

The MICRO-Lift: A Ligaments-Based Anatomic Technique for Lower Face and Neck Rejuvenation Using Bipolar Radiofrequency.

Original Article

Simplified Technique for Creating an Umbilicus with Scarless Caudal Aspect and Superior Hooding

Original Article

Reoperative Augmentation Mammoplasty: An Algorithm to Optimize Soft-Tissue Support, Pocket Control, and Smooth Implant Stability with Composite Reverse Inferior Muscle Sling (CRIMS) and its Technical Variations