Lipoplasty Claims Experience of U.S. Insurance Companies

Do Abdominal Binders Prevent Seroma Formation and Recurrent Diastasis Following Abdominoplasty?

BACKGROUND

For decades, the postoperative wearing of abdominal binders has been suggested to reduce dead space and prevent mobilization of the musculoaponeurotic layer in an attempt to decrease the risk of seroma formation and recurrent diastasis.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate whether the postoperative wearing of an abdominal binder provides any additional contribution to the reduction of either seroma formation or recurrent diastasis recti when abdominoplasty is performed with quilting sutures.

METHODS

Thirty-four women undergoing abdominoplasty were randomized into 2 groups: the binder group (n = 16) wore abdominal binders during the postoperative period, whereas the control group (n = 18) did not. Ultrasound examination was performed on postoperative days 7 and 14 to assess seroma formation and at 6 months postoperatively to assess recurrence of diastasis recti. A t test for independent samples was applied to compare means between 2 numeric variables. Generalized estimation equation models were used to evaluate seroma volume at different time points for the 2 groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences in seroma volume were found between groups on postoperative days 7 (P = 0.830) and 14 (P = 0.882). Seven cases of subclinical recurrent diastasis were observed by ultrasound examination in the supraumbilical (4 cases) and infraumbilical regions (3 cases), but without significant differences (P = 1.000) between the 2 groups. Recurrent diastasis was not detected during physical examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative wearing of abdominal binders was not effective in preventing either seroma formation or recurrent diastasis following abdominoplasty with quilting sutures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Is There a Limit? A Risk Assessment Model of Liposuction and Lipoaspirate Volume on Complications in Abdominoplasty

BACKGROUND

Combining liposuction and abdominoplasty is controversial because of concerns for increased complications and potential for vascular compromise of the abdominoplasty flap. Also, the lipoaspirate volume in abdominoplasty is regulated in some areas to as little as 500 ml when performed with abdominoplasty. This study measures abdominoplasty complication rates when performed with and without trunk liposuction, and evaluates the effect of lipoaspirate volume on complications.

METHODS

Abdominoplasty and liposuction of the trunk procedures were identified in the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons database. Multivariate regression models determined the effect of liposuction with abdominoplasty on complications compared with abdominoplasty alone and determined the effect of liposuction volume on complications.

RESULTS

Eleven thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were identified: 9638 (86.1 percent) having abdominoplasty with truncal liposuction and 1553 (13.9 percent) having abdominoplasty alone. Overall complication rates were 10.5 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively. Combined liposuction and abdominoplasty was independently associated with a reduced risk of both overall complications (p = 0.046) and seroma (p = 0.030). Given existing laws limiting liposuction volume to 500 or 1000 ml in combination with abdominoplasty, each of these thresholds was evaluated, with no effect on complications. Surprisingly, increasing liposuction volume was not independently associated with an increased risk of any complication.

CONCLUSIONS

When done by board-certified plastic surgeons, abdominoplasty with truncal liposuction is safe, with fewer complications than abdominoplasty alone. Regulations governing liposuction volumes in abdominoplasty are arbitrary and do not reflect valid thresholds for increased complications.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Tumescent liposuction report performance measurement initiative: national survey results

BACKGROUND

This study was created by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care Institute for Quality Improvement to measure clinical performance and improvement opportunities for physicians and ambulatory health-care organizations. Data were collected prospectively between February 2001 and August 2002. Thirty-nine study centers participated, and 688 patients who had tumescent liposuction were surveyed and followed for 6 months.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to determine patient satisfaction with tumescent liposuction and examine current liposuction practice and the safety of tumescent liposuction in a representative cohort of patients.

METHODS

The Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care Institute for Quality Improvement collected prospective data from February 2001 to August 2002 from 68 organizations registered for this study. Ultimately 39 organizations submitted 688 useable cases performed totally with local anesthesia, "tumescent technique."

RESULTS

The overall clinical complication rate found in the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care Institute for Quality Improvement study was 0.7% (5 of 702). There was a minor complication rate of 0.57%. The major complication rate was 0.14% with one patient requiring hospitalization. Seventy-five percent of the patients reported no discomfort during their procedures. Of the 59% of patients who responded to a 6-month postoperative survey, 91% were positive about their decision to have liposuction (rating of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1-5) and 84% had high levels (4 or 5 on a scale of 1-5) of overall satisfaction with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are consistent with others in that tumescent liposuction is a safe procedure with a low complication rate and high patient satisfaction.

Practice Advisory on Liposuction

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: At the 69th annual meeting of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) in October of 2000, the ASPS Board of Directors convened the Task Force on Patient Safety in Office-Based Surgery Facilities. The task force was assembled in the wake of several highly publicized patient deaths involving plastic surgery and increasing state legislative and regulatory activity of office-based surgery facilities. In response to the increased scrutiny of the office-based surgery setting, the task force produced two practice advisories: "Procedures in the Office-Based Surgery Setting" and "Patient Selection in the Office-Based Surgery Setting." Since the task force's inception, professional and public awareness of patient safety issues has continued to grow. This heightened interest resulted in an increased need for plastic surgeons to communicate their views on the topic. To meet this challenge, the task force evolved into the Committee on Patient Safety, allowing the committee to address topics affecting the safety and welfare of plastic surgery patients, regardless of the facility setting. The "Practice Advisory on Liposuction" is the first advisory developed since the committee was formed. It was a lengthy and painstaking process for the committee, which included representatives from related plastic surgery organizations as well as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Committee members included Ronald E. Iverson, M.D., chair; Jeffery L. Apfelbaum, M.D., ASA representative; Bruce L. Cunningham, M.D., ASPS/Plastic Surgery Educational Foundation (PSEF) Joint Outcomes Task Force representative; Richard A. D'Amico, M.D., ASPS representative; Victor L. Lewis, Jr., M.D., ASPS Health Policy Analysis Committee representative; Dennis J. Lynch, M.D., ASPS representative; Noel B. McDevitt, M.D., ASPS Deep Vein Thrombosis Task Force representative; Michael F. McGuire, M.D., The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) representative; Louis Morales, Jr., M.D., American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons representative; Calvin R. Peters, M.D., Florida Ad Hoc Commission on Patient Safety representative; Robert Singer, M.D., American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities representative; Thomas Ray Stevenson, M.D., American College of Surgeons representative; Rebecca S. Twersky, M.D., ASA representative; Ronald H. Wender, M.D., ASA representative; and James A. Yates, ASAPS representative. The authors thank members of the committee for the insights they brought to this process. The final document represents their significant contributions to these efforts. They would also like to recognize DeLaine Schmitz and Pat Farrell of the ASPS staff for their work on and support of this project.

Tumescent and dry liposuction of lower extremities: differences in lymph vessel injury

Lipectomy is a standard procedure in plastic surgery. Until now, however, there was no definite information about the influence of different liposuction techniques (tumescent versus dry liposuction) on the integrity of lymph collectors during this procedure. To study the effect of these liposuction techniques on the incidence of lymph vessel injury, postmortem lymphatic preparations were done in nine human cadavers (18 lower extremities). Conventional liposuction with a blunt 4-mm cannula in the dry technique (n = 29 regions) was compared with the tumescent technique (n = 26). Liposuction was performed in parallel to the superficial lymph vessels (longitudinal suction) or transversally in an 80-degree to 90-degree angle to the extremity (vertical suction). Careful surgical preparation of different regions followed. A specific macroscopic lymph vessel injury score was applied to differentiate three degrees of lymph vessel lesions according to the extravasation of patent blue. In all lower extremities, postmortem lymph flow occurred as indicated by patent blue staining of the lymph vessels. Injection of fluid that is obligatory during tumescent suction did not result in grade 2 injury. On the contrary, tumescent suction overall produced significantly fewer lymph vessel lesions when compared with the dry technique (p < 0.05). Longitudinal liposuction produced significantly less injury when compared with vertical suction (p < 0.05). Tumescent suction and dry suction were equally effective in removing adipose aspirates, as verified by circumference measurements. In addition, tumescent liposuction is unlikely to cause major lesions of epifascial lymph vessels during suction procedures vertical to the extremity axis. Therefore, in this respect, this technique is superior to dry suction.

Lipoaspiration and Its Complications: A Safe Operation

Although lipoaspiration has been considered a safe surgical procedure for the last 30 years, reports indicate that this procedure has a high index of complications. This study was performed to analyze experience with patients in a clinical practice for the past 8 years who underwent lipoaspiration, either alone or in combination with another surgical procedure, and to compare the results with previous reports in the literature. The patients were divided into four groups: lipoaspiration alone of less than 5 liters, lipoaspiration alone of more than 5 liters, lipoaspiration combined with abdominoplasty, and lipoaspiration combined with another surgical procedure. Complications were divided into minor or major, depending on previous reports, and statistical analysis was used to determine any significant difference among the four groups. From January of 1994 to December of 2001, 1047 patients underwent lipoaspiration, either alone or in combination with another surgical procedure. A 21.7 percent incidence of minor complications was noted, as well as a 0.38 percent incidence of major complications. Minor complications included palpable and visible irregularities, seromas, cutaneous hyperpigmentation, overcorrection, cutaneous slough, and local infection. Major complications included fat embolism syndrome, cutaneous necrosis, and extended infection. No statistical difference was noted among the groups studied. The incidence of complications was similar to that in clinical reports in the world literature, being of a low percentage rate when compared with the reports of other types of surgical procedures. On the basis of these results, lipoaspiration continues to be a safe surgical procedure, but to maximally avoid complications, one should be mindful of all the factors that could predispose to them.