Scan to show amount of gland/ fat present?

[orrible]

Is their any test to show the amount of breast tissue or fat you have in your chest? I didnt know if a scan would be able to show that stuff? I am having problems post op which i have been told is scar tissue build up, but am convinced is gland, so am looking for a solution to be sure. many thanks

[brm]

I don't know if it helps. Some say on this  site that scar tissue may be reduced with vit E and C taken orally. Since your op  is recent, maybe you should not neglect this track. Likewise, massaging locally with a blend of vegetal and essential oils softens tissues and helps scars partly away.

[Paa_Paw]

While the external surgical wound heals in about 2 weeks,  The internal healing takes somewhat longer.

In fact, I've seen messages posted here indicating that a year or longer may be needed to reach the final contour in some cases.

I am not aware of any simple test to identify the difference between gland/fat/scar. Some of the new imaging technologies may be able to do it, but it would be at great cost with little to no potential benefit.

[Hypo-is-here]

Just to say ultrasound scans can only pick up certain types of glandular gynecomastia.

That means that you can have an ultrasound scan that says it is non glandular- when it is glandular.

This happened to me.

My gynecomastia was increased via testosterone replacement therapy (my estradiol went through the roof and was not correctly medicated against in time as it should have been).

The only way estradiol can increase gynecomastia is by increasing glandular mass, as it cannot increase fat.

So my gynecomastia increased dramatically in the space of three weeks, the scan said I had no gland and the surgeon said I had diffuse glandular gynecomastia.

Also it was VERY obvious that my gynecomastia was glandular.

So in answer a scan cannot say whether you definitely have glandular gynecomastia or not.

This is probably the reason that many top PSs don't use ultrasound scans.





 

[Worrier]

I think a PS would not be the right person to see purely for diagnostic purposes. I went to see a consutant breast surgeon in the uk when I first got the enlargement.I think a doctor like that would be the best person to see for this. I had such a scan done as well as a physical exam and he said it is very accurate in determining the cause of an enlargement. And could he felt accurately see whether it is gland or fat. Maybe the technologies on scans has improved.

It is costly but I would want to be one hundred percent certain of the cause. A ps I feel would have other motivations which is probably why many do not offer scans.

[Hypo-is-here]

I think a PS would not be the right person to see purely for diagnostic purposes. I went to see a consutant breast surgeon in the uk when I first got the enlargement.I think a doctor like that would be the best person to see for this. I had such a scan done as well as a physical exam and he said it is very accurate in determining the cause of an enlargement. And could he felt accurately see whether it is gland or fat. Maybe the technologies on scans has improved.

It is costly but I would want to be one hundred percent certain of the cause. A ps I feel would have other motivations which is probably why many do not offer scans.

No, sorry but this is all wrong.

First of all the best person to diagnose the aetiology of gynecomastia is an endocrinologist that specializes or has an active interest in reproductive endocrinology.

NOT a consultant breast surgeon.

This is because ultimately gynecomastia is caused by hormonal factors and endocrinologist are experts in hormones.

Endocrinologists are the experts in causative factors surrounding gynecomastia and consultant breast surgeons like PSs are ONLY experts in the removal of gynecomastia.

Regarding the scan that I made reference to, I had my scan merely a few months ago, so my point is not remotely outdated and very relevant.  Simply put certain types of glandular gynecomastia cannot be picked up by scans.

If the glandular gynecomastia is diffuse, in other words mixed up/intertwinned with fat as opposed to a glandular mass then it will not appear dense enough and not be picked up on such scans.

My ultrasound scan said non glandular gynecomastia.

My consultant breast surgeon (I too am in the UK) said what she took out was diffuse glandular gynecomastia.

She also said she could feel the lumps of gland in the breast prior pre op- as I myself could.

Like I say my gynecomastia significanly increased in the space of three weeks as a result of high estrogen- and the only way that , that can physically happen is via an increase in glandular tissue as estrogens can not increase fat.

I hope that clarifies matters.