Kluska Michael, Deal R Chad, Summers Kyle, Chang Steven
From the West Virginial School of Osteopathic Medicine, Lewisburg, W.V.; Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Va.
Southern Surgical Arts, Chattanooga, Tenn.; Erlanger Baroness Hospital, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Aug 6;12(8):e6024. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006024. eCollection 2024 Aug.
Driven by demand for nonexcisional alternatives to address lax skin following liposuction, various energy-based technologies have become available. Helium plasma radiofrequency (RF) and bipolar RF have gained prominence. These technologies have distinctly different methods of action and indications, potentially influencing procedural safety and duration.
Conducted to collect and evaluate real-world procedure and safety data, this retrospective, single-center, contiguous series study included patients who underwent either helium plasma RF or bipolar RF following a liposuction or body contouring procedure.
The helium plasma RF group (N = 229) averaged 4.9 concurrent procedures, whereas the bipolar RF group (N = 236) averaged 4.4 concurrent procedures. The total treatment time, including concurrent procedures, was 182 minutes for the helium plasma RF group and 196 minutes for the bipolar RF group. The findings from the subanalysis group (n = 9) indicated that the treatment time for the helium plasma RF side of the body was 50% shorter than the bipolar RF side. A statistically significant difference in adverse events by group was observed. There were 45 events in 34 patients for helium plasma RF and 93 events in 62 patients for bipolar RF. Notably, fewer occurrences of burns, hematoma, hypertrophic scar, and seroma were reported for helium plasma RF compared with bipolar RF.
The analysis reveals a notable difference in the occurrence of adverse events, with statistically significantly fewer incidents observed for helium plasma RF compared with bipolar RF. Data suggests that helium plasma RF exhibits shorter durations in the operating room compared with bipolar RF, suggesting increased procedural efficiency.
受抽脂术后解决皮肤松弛的非切除性替代方法需求的驱动,各种基于能量的技术应运而生。氦等离子体射频(RF)和双极射频备受关注。这些技术具有截然不同的作用方式和适应症,可能会影响手术的安全性和持续时间。
为收集和评估实际手术及安全数据,这项回顾性、单中心、连续系列研究纳入了在抽脂或身体塑形手术后接受氦等离子体射频或双极射频治疗的患者。
氦等离子体射频组(N = 229)平均同时进行4.9项手术,而双极射频组(N = 236)平均同时进行4.4项手术。包括同时进行的手术在内,氦等离子体射频组的总治疗时间为182分钟,双极射频组为196分钟。亚分析组(n = 9)的结果表明,身体氦等离子体射频侧的治疗时间比双极射频侧短50%。观察到两组在不良事件方面存在统计学显著差异。氦等离子体射频组34例患者发生45起事件,双极射频组62例患者发生93起事件。值得注意的是,与双极射频相比,氦等离子体射频报告的烧伤、血肿、肥厚性瘢痕和血清肿发生率更低。
分析显示不良事件发生率存在显著差异,与双极射频相比,氦等离子体射频观察到的事件在统计学上显著更少。数据表明,与双极射频相比,氦等离子体射频在手术室的持续时间更短,表明手术效率提高。