Atieh Bichara, Baajour Jana, El Merkabaoui Haya, Makkawi Kareem
Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Apr 23. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-04872-2.
Over the past two decades, liposuction techniques have significantly evolved. Methods aimed at improving safety, efficiency, and cosmetic outcomes have been developed. Energy-based devices (EBD) that generate heat capable of fragmenting fat and inducing skin retraction are the most advertised and marketed as a possible alternative to invasive surgical skin excision. Third-generation ultrasound-assisted liposuction (UAL), vibration amplification of sound energy at resonance (VASER) is at present employed in approximately 20% of liposuction cases. Whether it has truly advanced the field or offers only a marketing advantage with negligible benefits, or whether any benefits, if present, outweigh the costs, remains a subject of debate. In an evidence-based perspective, the current review is intended to critically analyze reported outcomes of UAL compared to suction-assisted lipectomy SAL.
A PICO literature search was conducted across the MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases RESULTS: Only 5 studies that specifically compared ultrasound-assisted liposuction with traditional liposuction techniques were identified and included in this review.
In spite of well-documented clinical efficiency, relative safety, decreased incidence of postoperative anemia, and less physician effort, there are at present little convincing long-term data to confirm UAL superior aesthetic outcomes and skin tightening. Offering this technology to patients with excessive fat or skin flaccidity or redundancy for whom more invasive surgery is indicated, on the promise that it will meet their expectations of optimal body contouring and skin tightening without visible scarring, may be somewhat misleading. 1. UAL is known for its clinical effectiveness, safety, lower rates of postoperative anemia, and reduced physician fatigue. 2. Currently, there are insufficient convincing long-term data to validate that UAL delivers better aesthetic results and skin tightening compared to SAL. 3. UAL should be offered to specific patients to ensure satisfactory results.
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
在过去二十年中，抽脂技术有了显著发展。旨在提高安全性、效率和美容效果的方法不断涌现。基于能量的设备（EBD）能够产生热量，使脂肪破碎并引起皮肤回缩，这类设备作为侵入性手术皮肤切除的一种可能替代方案得到了大量宣传和推广。第三代超声辅助抽脂术（UAL），即共振声能振动放大术（VASER），目前约占抽脂病例的20%。它是否真正推动了该领域的发展，还是仅仅提供了一种营销优势而益处微不足道，又或者即便有任何益处，这些益处是否超过成本，仍是一个有争议的话题。从循证医学的角度来看，本综述旨在批判性地分析与抽脂辅助脂肪切除术（SAL）相比，超声辅助抽脂术（UAL）的报告结果。
通过检索MEDLINE、PubMed和EMBASE数据库进行PICO文献检索。结果：仅识别出5项专门比较超声辅助抽脂术与传统抽脂技术的研究，并纳入本综述。
尽管有充分记录的临床效率、相对安全性、术后贫血发生率降低以及医生工作量减少等情况，但目前几乎没有令人信服的长期数据来证实超声辅助抽脂术具有更好的美学效果和皮肤紧致效果。向那些脂肪过多、皮肤松弛或多余且适合更具侵入性手术的患者提供这项技术，承诺它能满足他们对最佳身体塑形和皮肤紧致且无明显疤痕的期望，可能会有一定的误导性。1. 超声辅助抽脂术以其临床有效性、安全性、较低的术后贫血发生率和减轻医生疲劳而闻名。2. 目前，没有足够令人信服的长期数据来证实与抽脂辅助脂肪切除术相比，超声辅助抽脂术能带来更好的美学效果和皮肤紧致效果。（3. 应向特定患者提供超声辅助抽脂术以确保满意的结果。）
证据水平III：本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或在线作者指南www.springer.com/00266 。
括号内的“3. 应向特定患者提供超声辅助抽脂术以确保满意的结果。”在原文中表述不太清晰且有重复，翻译时保留了原文内容。
