Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Aesthet Surg J. 2014 Jul;34(5):741-7. doi: 10.1177/1090820X14532286. Epub 2014 Jul 1.

Comparison of Limited-Undermining Lipoabdominoplasty and Traditional Abdominoplasty Using Laser Fluorescence Imaging.

Author information

1
Dr Roostaeian is a clinical instructor at the University of California, Los Angeles Health.
2
Mr Harris is a medical student, Dr Barton is a Clinical Professor, and Dr Kenkel is the Vice Chairman and Program Director of the Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas.
3
Dr Farkas is a plastic surgeon in private practice in Paramus, New Jersey.
4
Mr Harris is a medical student, Dr Barton is a Clinical Professor, and Dr Kenkel is the Vice Chairman and Program Director of the Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas Jeffrey.Kenkel@UTSouthwestern.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Body contouring that involves abdominoplasty and/or liposuction is a common cosmetic surgery procedure. Although single-staged lipoabdominoplasty has gained popularity, safety concerns remain.

OBJECTIVES:

The authors compared abdominal flap perfusion and overall complication rates for traditional abdominoplasty and limited-undermining lipoabdominoplasty.

METHODS:

Eighteen abdominoplasty patients were evaluated in a prospective study. All patients were nonsmokers and lacked major comorbidities. The control group (n = 9) underwent traditional abdominoplasty with wide undermining. The study group (n = 9) underwent abdominoplasty with limited undermining as well as liposuction of the abdominal flap. The groups were similar with respect to age and body mass index. Patients received follow-up for an average of 97 days. Fluorescence imaging was utilized for perfusion studies. Results and complications were documented, and statistical significance was ascertained via the Student t test.

RESULTS:

Neither group had major complications or revisions. Minor complications included an exposed suture, resulting in delayed wound healing, in the control group. A patient in the study group had a small area of fat necrosis and a small seroma, neither of which required further treatment. No significant difference in abdominal flap perfusion was found between the control (57%) and study (50%) groups based on fluorescence levels relative to a designated baseline reference marker.

CONCLUSIONS:

Results of the study indicate that no significant differences exist between the 2 operations with respect to the rates of abdominal flap perfusion or complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

3.

KEYWORDS:

SPY system; abdominoplasty; laser fluorescence imaging; lipoabdominoplasty; perfusion

PMID:
24809360
DOI:
10.1177/1090820X14532286
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center