Outcome analysis of combined lipoabdominoplasty versus conventional abdominoplasty
- PMID: 18454008
- DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816b1350
Outcome analysis of combined lipoabdominoplasty versus conventional abdominoplasty
Abstract
Background: Abdominoplasty and liposuction have traditionally been separate procedures. The authors performed a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the outcomes of a novel single-stage approach combining extensive lipoplasty with a modified transverse abdominoplasty.
Methods: One hundred fourteen patients were evaluated for abdominal contouring. Patients were categorized into four groups: group I (n = 20) received abdominal liposuction only, group II (n = 33) traditional W-pattern incision line abdominoplasty, group III (n = 30) modified transverse incision abdominoplasty, and group IV (n = 31) combined procedure involving widely distributed abdominal liposuction accompanied by inverted V-pattern dissection abdominoplasty. Wound complications, patient satisfaction, and revision rates were compared statistically.
Results: Group I (liposuction alone) experienced an overall complication rate of 5 percent; two patients were dissatisfied (10 percent) and underwent further revision with full abdominoplasties. Group II (traditional W-pattern abdominoplasty) had a complication rate of 42 percent, a dissatisfaction rate of 42 percent, and a revision rate of 39 percent. By comparison, group III (modified low transverse abdominoplasty) had a complication rate of 17 percent, a dissatisfaction rate of 37 percent, and a revision rate of 33 percent. Group IV (combined liposuction plus abdominoplasty) had significantly lower complication, dissatisfaction, and revision rates (9, 3, and 3 percent, respectively).
Conclusions: Modified transverse abdominoplasty combined with extensive liposuction and limited paramedian supraumbilical dissection produced fewer complications and less dissatisfaction than did traditional abdominoplasty. This may be attributable to a reduced tension midline closure in the suprapubic region, less lateral undermining in the upper abdomen, and greater preservation of intercostal artery blood flow to the flap.
References
-
- Kelly, H. A report of gynecologic diseases (excessive growth of fat). Johns Hopkins Med. J. 10: 197, 1899.
-
- Pitanguy, I. Abdominal lipectomy: An approach to it through analysis of 300 consecutive cases. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 40: 384, 1967.
-
- Hensel, J. M., Lehman, J. A., Jr., Tantri, M. P., et al. An outcome analysis and satisfaction survey of 199 consecutive abdominoplasties. Ann. Plast. Surg. 46: 357, 2001.
-
- Huger, W. E. The anatomic rationale for abdominal lipectomy. Ann. Surg. 45: 612, 1979.
-
- Wilkinson, T. S., and Swartz, B. E. Individual modifications in body contour surgery: The “limited” abdominoplasty. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 77: 779, 1986.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical