Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis
Across cosmetic and oncoplastic surgery, a randomized study shows endoscopic lipolysis/liposuction for gynecomastia lowers complications and pain with comparable 1-year recurrence and higher satisfaction versus open excision. Chest wall perforator flaps yield safe, aesthetically favorable breast-conserving reconstructions, while a plant extract-containing foundation improved skin barrier metrics over 28 days without reported adverse events.
Summary
Across cosmetic and oncoplastic surgery, a randomized study shows endoscopic lipolysis/liposuction for gynecomastia lowers complications and pain with comparable 1-year recurrence and higher satisfaction versus open excision. Chest wall perforator flaps yield safe, aesthetically favorable breast-conserving reconstructions, while a plant extract-containing foundation improved skin barrier metrics over 28 days without reported adverse events.
Research Themes
- Minimally invasive aesthetic breast surgery
- Oncoplastic breast-conserving reconstruction
- Skincare–makeup hybrids and skin barrier function
Selected Articles
1. A comparative study on the short-term and long-term efficacy of endoscopic lipolysis, liposuction, and traditional open excision in gynecomastia treatment.
In a randomized comparison of 140 men with gynecomastia, endoscopic lipolysis/liposuction achieved shorter incisions, less bleeding, shorter operations/hospitalization, lower complications, and lower pain at 1 and 3 weeks versus open excision, with similar 1-year recurrence. Aesthetic ratings and overall satisfaction were significantly higher in the minimally invasive group.
Impact: This RCT directly informs surgical choice in a common aesthetic condition, demonstrating superior perioperative and patient-reported outcomes without compromising 1-year efficacy.
Clinical Implications: Endoscopic lipolysis/liposuction can be considered a preferred first-line surgical approach for appropriate gynecomastia candidates, emphasizing enhanced recovery and cosmetic satisfaction while maintaining comparable recurrence at 1 year.
Key Findings
- Endoscopic group had shorter incisions, shorter operation time, shorter hospital stay, and less intraoperative bleeding (all P<0.05).
- Postoperative complications were significantly lower in the endoscopic group (P<0.05).
- Pain (VAS) at 1 and 3 weeks post-surgery was lower in the endoscopic group (P<0.05).
- One-year recurrence rates did not differ between groups (P>0.05).
- Aesthetic scores (chest appearance, scarring, nipple-areola aesthetics) and overall satisfaction were higher in the endoscopic group (P<0.05).
Methodological Strengths
- Randomized allocation with parallel surgical comparators
- Comprehensive outcomes including complications, VAS pain, recurrence, and satisfaction over 1 year
Limitations
- Single-center study; blinding and allocation concealment details not reported
- Follow-up limited to 1 year for recurrence; long-term contour outcomes not assessed
Future Directions: Multicenter, longer-term RCTs evaluating cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, and stratification by gynecomastia grade are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the comparative short-term and long-term efficacy of endoscopic lipolysis and liposuction versus traditional open excision in the treatment of gynecomastia. METHODS: A total of 140 male patients diagnosed with gynecomastia and admitted to our hospital from April 2021 to May 2022 were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups based on the surgical treatment method: the control group (traditional open excision, n = 70) and the observation group (liposuction under endoscope, n = 70). Comprehensive demographic and clinical data were collected for both groups. Surgical indicators, postoperative complication rates, and pain levels measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) one month post-surgery were observed and compared. Additionally, recurrence rates and patient satisfaction scores were evaluated one year after the procedure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05). The observation group exhibited shorter incision lengths, reduced operation times, and decreased hospital stays compared to the control group (P < 0.05), alongside less intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in the observation group (P < 0.05). At one and three weeks post-surgery, the observation group reported lower VAS scores for pain compared to the control group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in recurrence rates between the groups one year post-surgery (P > 0.05). However, the observation group achieved higher scores in terms of chest appearance, wound scarring, nipple and areola aesthetics, and overall satisfaction (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic lipolysis and liposuction not only demonstrate advantages such as lower complication rates and expedited recovery in the treatment of gynecomastia but also provide long-term efficacy comparable to traditional surgical methods. This approach significantly enhances patient satisfaction, establishing it as a preferred treatment option due to its safety profile and ability to deliver superior cosmetic outcomes.
2. Application of chest wall perforator flaps in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery.
In a retrospective case series of 22 women undergoing oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with chest wall perforator flaps, all flaps survived with one conservatively managed infection, negative margins in all cases, high patient/physician satisfaction, and favorable objective aesthetics (BCCT.core) over a median 14.5 months.
Impact: Provides detailed, technique-focused outcomes with objective aesthetic assessment for CWPF, supporting broader adoption of perforator-based partial breast reconstruction.
Clinical Implications: CWPFs are a viable option for partial reconstruction in small-to-medium non-ptotic breasts, offering high satisfaction with low morbidity; selection among LICAP/LTAP/AICAP can be tailored to tumor location and vascular anatomy.
Key Findings
- All 22 cases achieved negative margins with complete flap survival; one surgical site infection resolved conservatively.
- High aesthetic outcomes: 85.6% patient and 89.0% physician ratings as excellent/good; objective assessment via BCCT.core confirmed favorable symmetry and contour.
- Median follow-up 14.5 months with one tumor recurrence and no mortality.
- Flap dimensions ranged 10–18 cm by 4–10 cm; average operative time 100.5±10.2 minutes; multiple perforators used in select cases to enhance perfusion.
Methodological Strengths
- Objective aesthetic evaluation using BCCT.core in addition to patient and surgeon ratings
- Detailed surgical techniques and perforator selection with complete margin reporting
Limitations
- Small, single-center retrospective case series without a comparator group
- Short-to-intermediate follow-up; limited power to assess oncologic long-term outcomes
Future Directions: Prospective comparative studies versus alternative oncoplastic techniques with longer follow-up and standardized patient-reported outcomes are needed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the application value of chest wall perforator flaps (CWPF) in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 22 early-stage breast cancer patients who underwent oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery using CWPF between January 2021 and December 2022. This included 4 cases (18.2%) utilizing lateral intercostal artery perforator (LICAP) flaps, 10 cases (45.4%) employing lateral thoracic artery perforator (LTAP) flaps, 4 cases (18.2%) combining LICAP and LTAP flaps, and 4 cases (18.2%) using anterior intercostal artery perforator (AICAP) flaps. The perforators used in this study included lateral thoracic artery perforators (LTAP), anterior intercostal artery perforators (AICAP), and lateral intercostal artery perforators (LICAP). In some cases, a combination of LICAP and LTAP was employed to ensure adequate blood supply. All flaps were supplied by dominant perforators, with some cases using multiple perforators to enhance flap perfusion and survival. Our single-center experience with CWPF, including surgical details, complications, aesthetic, and oncological outcomes, is reported. RESULTS: Among all patients, tumors were located in the outer quadrant (68.2%), central quadrant (13.6%), and inner quadrant (18.2%) of the excision cavity. In the 22 patients, 15 tumors were located in the outer quadrant: 6 in the left upper outer quadrant (1-2 o'clock), 4 in the right upper outer quadrant (10-11 o'clock), and 5 in the outer quadrants (3 o'clock in 3 cases and 9 o'clock in 2 cases). Four tumors were in the lower inner quadrant: 2 in the left lower inner quadrant (7-8 o'clock) and 2 in the right lower inner quadrant (4-5 o'clock). Three tumors were in the central area extending toward the outer quadrant. All tumors were located more than 2 cm from the nipple-areola complex (NAC), and intraoperative frozen sections confirmed negative margins behind the NAC. All patients had negative surgical margins. The average operative time was 100.5 ± 10.2 min, with flap lengths ranging from 10 to 18 cm and widths from 4 to 10 cm. All flaps survived, with only one instance of surgical site infection, which improved with conservative treatment. Overall patient satisfaction was rated as excellent or good in 85.6%, and physician evaluation was 89.0% excellent or good. In addition to subjective patient and surgeon satisfaction surveys, objective aesthetic outcomes were evaluated using the BCCT.core software. This tool provided a standardized assessment of breast symmetry, contour, and cosmetic outcomes, enhancing the objectivity and reproducibility of the cosmetic evaluation in the study. The median follow-up period was 14.5 months, with one case of tumor recurrence and no patient mortality. CONCLUSION: CWPF can be effectively used in small-to-medium volume, non-ptotic breasts for oncoplastic surgery, yielding high patient satisfaction. In the era of oncoplastic breast surgery, chest wall perforator flaps are a reliable and safe option for partial breast reconstruction with acceptable aesthetic results.
3. Benefits of incorporating plant extracts into a commercially available foundation for daily skin use.
In vitro testing identified 0.5% plant extract as non-cytotoxic, reducing MMP-1 and increasing COL1A1, COL3A1, ELN, and AQP3 expression in HaCaTs. A commercial foundation containing 0.5% extract improved TEWL, hydration, wrinkles, elasticity, and sebum over 28 days without reported adverse effects.
Impact: Integrates mechanistic cell assays with a human use test of a skincare–makeup hybrid, supporting efficacy and safety claims for functional cosmetics.
Clinical Implications: Supports the formulation of skincare–makeup hybrids containing 0.5% plant extract to enhance barrier-related endpoints; controlled clinical trials are needed before routine claims.
Key Findings
- 0.5% plant extract was non-cytotoxic in HaCaTs and reduced ROS-associated MMP-1 while upregulating COL1A1, COL3A1, ELN, and AQP3.
- The 0.5% plant extract foundation improved TEWL, hydration, wrinkles, elasticity, and sebum after 28 days of use.
- No adverse effects were reported during the 28-day human use study.
Methodological Strengths
- Bridging in vitro mechanistic assays with a prospective human use evaluation
- Gene expression profiling to support biological plausibility of cosmetic endpoints
Limitations
- Human sample size not reported and absence of a randomized control group
- Short 28-day follow-up limits durability assessment; potential product-specific generalizability
Future Directions: Conduct blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials with diverse populations and longer follow-up; delineate dose–response and in vivo mechanistic biomarkers.
PURPOSE: This study examined a plant extract (PE) foundation's safety, antioxidant and protective properties. To offer a scientific foundation for the viability of creating 'skincare makeup' and improve the comprehension of cosmetic compositions' efficacy evaluations. METHODS: Cellular assays tested six different concentrations (up to 5%) of the PE for cell viability levels and reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels of human immortalised epidermal cells (HaCaTs). The identified non-cytotoxic concentration (0.5% PE) was then tested by gene assays. A commercial foundation containing 0.5% PE (PEF0.5) was tested for safety, skin protective effectiveness, and user satisfaction. RESULTS: Compared to the control groups, 0.5% PE had a significant inhibitory effect on the expression level of MMP-1 but promoted the expression of COL1A1, COL3A1, ELN, and AQP3. PEF0.5 significantly ( CONCLUSION: Applying PEF0.5 for 28 days may improve the skin barrier function, as indicated by skin TEWL, hydration, wrinkle, elasticity, and sebum content, without any adverse effects.