Traditional Abdominoplasty (original) (raw)
Related papers
Outcome Analysis of Combined Lipoabdominoplasty versus Conventional Abdominoplasty
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2008
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 ϭ 20) received abdominal liposuction only, group II (n ϭ 33) traditional W-pattern incision line abdominoplasty, group III (n ϭ 30) modified transverse incision abdominoplasty, and group IV (n ϭ 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.
Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica (RBCP) – Brazilian Journal of Plastic Sugery
Conflitos de interesse: não há. Introduction: Abdominoplasty techniques have constantly evolved since 1899. With modern liposuction techniques, the concept of high-definition liposuction aims to correct stigmas secondary to the procedure, such as a "tense" appearance and lack of natural abdominal convexity and concavity. Methods: Here we propose a technique to redefine the natural abdominal anatomy using traditional lipoabdominoplasty with selective liposuction to achieve more natural-looking surgical results that are reproducible for most patients. This study included 21 abdominoplasty procedures using the described technique performed between November 2018 and May 2019. The technique showed satisfactory ability to achieve a natural abdominal appearance using deep and superficial liposuction in abdominal shadow areas. Conclusion: The study showed that the technique is safe from a vascular point of view and reproducible due to the use of conventional liposuction, which is available to the vast majority of plastic surgeons.
Complication Rates of Lipoabdominoplasty versus Traditional Abdominoplasty in High-Risk Patients
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2010
Background: Concerns over the safety of combining extensive liposuction with abdominoplasty in a one-stage lipoabdominoplasty procedure persist. This study reports a comparison of the perfusion-related complication rates between lipoabdominoplasty and traditional abdominoplasty among high-risk patients, those more susceptible to complications secondary to a smoking history or previous significant supraumbilical abdominal scar. Methods: The authors conducted a chart review of 161 patients from the Yale University Cosmetic Clinic who had undergone either lipoabdominoplasty (n ϭ 93) or traditional abdominoplasty (n ϭ 68) between 2004 and 2009. Patients were classified as high-risk patients if they were active smokers or had undergone previous abdominal surgery resulting in a significant supraumbilical abdominal scarring. Specific vascularity-related complications were compared between the techniques. Results: Patients undergoing lipoabdominoplasty had a perfusion-related complication rate of 4.30 percent compared with 11.76 percent in those undergoing traditional abdominoplasty (p ϭ 0.126). Among high-risk patients (26 smokers and 19 patients with significant supraumbilical scars), there was no statistically significant difference for perfusion-related complications, including skin necrosis, wound infection, and wound dehiscence. The need for surgical revision was 10.75 percent in patients undergoing lipoabdominoplasty, whereas 20.58 percent of patients undergoing traditional abdominoplasty needed revision surgery (p ϭ 0.116). Conclusions: Lipoabdominoplasty is not associated with a statistically significant increase in perfusion-related complication rates as compared with traditional abdominoplasty, despite the fact that it involves potential trauma to the vascularity of the elevated abdominoplasty flap. This holds true even in patients who are at increased risk for perfusion-related complications secondary to a history of active smoking or a previous supraumbilical scar.
Abdominoplasty with anchor plication and complete lipoplasty
Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 2004
Background: Combined abdominoplasty and lipoplasty is frequently performed to achieve improved body contour in a single surgical session. Objective: We describe a procedure that combines vertical and transverse plication of the abdominal fascia with lipoplasty of the anterior abdominal wall. Methods: Lipoplasty of the anterior abdominal wall was performed using a superwet technique. The amount of extracted fat ranged from 200 to 6000 mL. Abdominoplasty was performed using traditional methods. Plication of the abdominal fascia combined the traditional longitudinal method with a half-moon plication, located in the lower abdomen. Results: Seventy-six women ranging in age from 20 to 62 years underwent combined abdominoplasty and lipoplasty between January 2002 and January 2003. Patient satisfaction was rated as excellent in 74 cases. Patient satisfaction was rated as good in the other 2 cases, in which the only patient complaint was hypertrophy of the scar, which improved over time with the use of massage. Seromas developed in 8 patients (10.52%) and were treated successfully by syringe extraction. Conclusions: Benefits of combining abdominoplasty with lipoplasty include reduction of abdominal flap volume, improvement in the final quality of the scar, and improved tissue contraction. The anchor plication reduces strain in the abdominal fascia and also diminishes the vertical abdominal diameter, facilitating the descent of the flap.
Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 2006
New technique with minimal trauma on subcutaneous panniculus Selection of patients and indication for surgery Surgical demarcations The operation & Discussion & References Abdominoplasty is one of the most frequent procedures in plastic surgery. There are two important components-an esthetic and a reconstructive approach-that provide a wide variety of options in abdominoplasty. The esthetic component is inherent to the surgical act, because it aims to create a new silhouette harmonizing the abdomen with the other segments of the body contour. The reconstructive component is related to the need for reinforcement of the musculoaponeurotic wall during abdominoplasty, which, in some cases, is a mandatory procedure to treat extensive alterations caused by repeated pregnancies, unesthetic and retracted scars secondary to previous surgeries, or many other etiologies.
Standards and Trends in Lipoabdominoplasty
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 2020
Background: Lipoabdominoplasty has evolved over the last 6 decades through contributions from numerous luminaries in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Methods: The authors review historical perspective and provide a contemporary examination of trends in lipoabdominoplasty. Results: In 1967, Pitanguy popularized abdominoplasty (without liposuction) as a technique for augmenting ventral hernias repairs and subsequently for aesthetic improvement of the abdomen. After the introduction of suction assisted lipectomy by Illouz in 1983, abdominoplasty became a central tool in a diverse armamentarium of anterior and lateral abdominal wall contouring procedures. Liposuction was initially utilized with mini-abdominoplasty in order to improve contour. Subsequently, Matarasso advanced the safe combination of liposuction with full abdominoplasty. Additionally, he systematized the variety of cutaneous undermining, excision, and liposuction procedures utilized in abdominal contouring as indicated...
Abdominoplasty techniques have evolved with our improved understanding of vascular anatomy, tissue mechanics, and patient preferences. As a result, today, surgeons are well equipped with an armamentarium of evidence-based techniques and adjuncts that safely and effectively address abdominal lipodystrophy, skin flaccidity, and myofascial laxity. Abdominoplasty is now one of the most common procedures performed by plastic surgeons in the United States, with rates projected to increase with the growing popularity of bariatric surgery, an aging population, and increasing motivation from a generation of patients who have undergone liposuction alone. The present article reviews the authors' current technique.
Applying art and science in lipoabdominoplasty: technical and safety considerations
Aim: Abdominoplasty has gained in popularity due to the advances in concepts and techniques. The objective of this article is to present a modern abdominoplasty approach, which combines technical elements and evidencebased medicine, in order to achieve consistent aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction rates while limiting the risk of complications. Methods: A detailed description of the lipoabdominoplasty technique is presented. Liposuction of the trunk is combined with dermolipectomy of the anterior abdomen and rectus abdominis muscle plication in a standardized fashion. Results: In this study, lipoabdominoplasty was performed on 93 patients. The mean hospital stay and time of drain removal were 1.2 and 8.1 days, respectively. The technique was associated with enhanced aesthetic outcomes, in terms of body contouring and definition, high satisfaction rate, and low rate of complications. Minor revisions were performed in 12% of cases, under local anesthesia. Conclusion: Safe and consistent outcomes can be achieved by a meticulous lipoabdominoplasty technique, based on the accumulated evidence, thorough anatomical and surgical knowledge, and the artistic acumen of a plastic surgeon.