The Pull-Through Technique — Minimal Scar, Maximum Removal
The pull-through technique is a minimally invasive approach to gynecomastia that removes the glandular component through the same small port used for liposuction — avoiding the classical inferior periareolar incision while still addressing the tissue that liposuction alone cannot reach. For selected Simon Grade I–IIa patients, it offers the best of both worlds: gland removal with no visible surgical scar.
Key principle: the pull-through technique is elegant and effective — but it is not universal. A gland that is too dense, too adherent, or too large cannot be safely delivered through a small port. Knowing when the pull-through is indicated and when it is not is the clinical skill; blindly attempting it in the wrong anatomy produces incomplete gland removal and recurrence.
How the technique works — step by step
- Marking and anaesthesia. The patient is marked standing. General anaesthesia is typical; local + sedation is possible in lean patients with small resections
- Tumescent infiltration. Lidocaine-epinephrine solution is infiltrated into the entire operative field for haemostasis and hydrodissection
- Aggressive subcutaneous liposuction. Using 3–4 mm cannulas through a single lateral or axillary 4 mm incision. The fat component is removed in full; the gland remains because it resists cannula action
- Gland mobilisation. A slightly more aggressive pass of liposuction around — but not through — the gland disrupts the surrounding adherent fat, leaving the gland semi-free in the cavity
- Pull-through. Through the same 4 mm port, a small Allis or tenaculum forceps is introduced, grasps the gland, and delivers it in one or several pieces without enlarging the incision. A dedicated "gynecomastia retractor" may be used
- Cavity verification. Finger palpation through the port confirms that no residual firm tissue remains. Any retained fragment is removed with further liposuction or additional forceps passes
- Closure. The 4 mm port is closed with a single subcuticular suture. No visible periareolar scar
Ideal candidates
- Simon Grade I–IIa with mixed glandular-fatty composition
- Moderate gland size — typically 15–40 g per side
- Semi-fibrous gland, not dense or heavily calcified
- Young, elastic skin that will retract without surgical tightening
- Younger patients (under 40) tend to respond best due to skin elasticity
When the pull-through is NOT the right choice
- Dense fibrous gland that cannot be safely mobilised — requires direct excision
- Large gland volumes (>50–60 g) that would require enlarging the port defeating the purpose
- Simon Grade IIb with skin laxity — even a perfect gland removal won't produce a good result without addressing skin
- Revision cases where scar tissue from prior surgery prevents clean mobilisation
- Suspected calcification on examination or imaging
Advantages over classical periareolar excision
The classical approach involves a ≈5 cm periareolar arc incision, direct visualisation, and formal gland excision. It remains the gold standard for larger glands and Grade IIb cases. The pull-through's advantages over it, in appropriately selected patients: no visible scar, shorter operative time, faster recovery, less post-operative bruising, and often less swelling. Its disadvantages: reduced tactile control of resection margins and inability to handle very large or very dense tissue.
Technical pitfalls
| Pitfall | Consequence | Avoidance |
|---|---|---|
| Over-aggressive retroareolar liposuction | Crater deformity | Preserve 5–8 mm retroareolar disc |
| Incomplete gland removal | Early recurrence | Finger palpation check at end of procedure |
| Forced pull-through of dense gland | Extended port, visible scar | Convert to open if required |
| Nipple devascularisation | Partial necrosis | Preserve subdermal vascular plexus at areola |
| Ignoring skin laxity | Underwhelming contour | Re-grade to IIb if needed, change plan |
Outcomes & recovery
Compared with classical periareolar excision:
- Operative time: 45–90 min (vs 90–120 min)
- Return to desk work: 3–5 days (vs 5–7 days)
- Return to full upper-body training: same — 6 weeks
- Scar: 4 mm puncture (vs ≈5 cm periareolar)
- Patient satisfaction: very high in appropriate candidates; disappointing if technique was forced in wrong anatomy
Key references
- Morselli PG. "Pull-through": a new technique for breast reduction in gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996;97:450-454.
- Gheita A. Gynecomastia: the horizontal ellipse method for its correction. Aesthet Plast Surg 2008;32:795-801.
- Rosenberg GJ. Gynecomastia: suction-lipectomy as a contemporary solution. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987;80:379-386.
- Rohrich RJ et al. Classification and management of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:909-923.
Am I a pull-through candidate?
Send standing photos on WhatsApp — Dr. Erdal will assess whether the pull-through is likely to give you an optimal result or whether a different technique is indicated.
WhatsApp Dr. Erdal