使用激光荧光成像比较有限剥离式腹壁成形术和传统腹壁成形术
Comparison of Limited-Undermining Lipoabdominoplasty and Traditional Abdominoplasty Using Laser Fluorescence Imaging.
作者信息
Roostaeian Jason, Harris Ryan, Farkas Jordan P, Barton Fritz E, Kenkel Jeffrey M
机构信息
Dr Roostaeian is a clinical instructor at the University of California, Los Angeles Health.
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.
出版信息
Aesthet Surg J. 2014 Jul;34(5):741-7. doi: 10.1177/1090820X14532286. Epub 2014 Jul 1.
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
背景
涉及腹壁成形术和/或抽脂术的身体塑形是一种常见的整形手术。尽管一期抽脂腹壁成形术已越来越受欢迎,但安全问题依然存在。
目的
作者比较了传统腹壁成形术和有限剥离抽脂腹壁成形术的腹部皮瓣灌注情况及总体并发症发生率。
方法
在一项前瞻性研究中对18例腹壁成形术患者进行了评估。所有患者均不吸烟且无重大合并症。对照组(n = 9)接受了广泛剥离的传统腹壁成形术。研究组(n = 9)接受了有限剥离的腹壁成形术以及腹部皮瓣抽脂术。两组在年龄和体重指数方面相似。患者平均接受了97天的随访。利用荧光成像进行灌注研究。记录结果和并发症,并通过学生t检验确定统计学意义。
结果
两组均未出现重大并发症或需要再次手术。对照组的轻微并发症包括一根缝线外露,导致伤口愈合延迟。研究组有一名患者出现小面积脂肪坏死和一个小血清肿,均无需进一步治疗。基于相对于指定基线参考标记的荧光水平,对照组(57%)和研究组(50%)的腹部皮瓣灌注无显著差异。
结论
研究结果表明,两种手术在腹部皮瓣灌注率或并发症方面不存在显著差异。
证据级别
3级。