Assessment of Blood Volume in Liposuction Fluids Using Colorimetry.

OBJECTIVE

The possibility of using a color contrast method to evaluate blood loss during liposuction was assessed. A color chart of blood-lipid content associated with different blood volumes was developed.

METHODS

Three color cards with different concentrations of blood were developed based on clinical parameters. The color cards were used to evaluate the volume of blood present in liposuction solutions obtained from 60 clinical liposuction patients. The red blood cell count also was evaluated for each patient. The data obtained using each evaluation method were compared and statistically analyzed to determine the most accurate calculation formula.

RESULTS

The red blood cell counts were compared to the color card results. The paired t test results for the calculated values for the 3:1, 2:1, and 1:1 color cards and the red blood cell count values were comparable (44.3 ± 22.1 ml vs. 53.6 ± 25.0 ml, t = 10.5; 45.4 ± 19.0 ml vs. 55.2 ± 20.7 ml, t = 18.1; 41.9 ± 25.6 ml vs. 52.8 ± 28.3 ml, t = 14.0). The P values were < 0.05, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant. The average standard error of the mean was 0.90, 0.54, and 0.77, respectively. Sixty samples were evaluated in a scatter diagram using the two detection methods. Trend analysis revealed that the two results demonstrated a linear increase (y = 5.6 + 1.1x), R = 0.989, indicating that the two inspection methods were highly correlated with only small errors.

CONCLUSION

The colorimetric card protocol developed in this study could quickly, accurately, and conveniently calculate blood volumes in liposuction fluids, which has considerable clinical significance.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors http://www.springer.com/00266 .