Evangelos Keramidas1, Stavroula Rodopoulou2, Maria-Ioanna Gavala2. 1. Kosmesis Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Center, Central Clinic of Athens, Ethnikis Antistaseos 9-11, Chalandri, 15232, Athens, Greece. plastker@yahoo.com. 2. Kosmesis Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Center, Central Clinic of Athens, Ethnikis Antistaseos 9-11, Chalandri, 15232, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study presents a classification system and treatment method to correct Rectus diastasis (RD) during abdominoplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty seven patients undergoing abdominoplasty were enrolled between April 2014 and January 2018. Forty-three patients did not present with RD and were excluded from the analysis. Mean age was 40.32 years, mean BMI was 23.84, and minimum follow-up was 24 months. A four-type (A: mild 2-3cm, B: moderate 3-5cm, C: severe 5-7cm, and D: very severe 7-9cm) classification system is described. A different treatment method is performed in each category using continuous and interrupted absorbable sutures. Postoperatively patients filled up a questionnaire that involved the level of pain, the postoperative day they performed specific indoor/outdoor activities, and the evaluation of the aesthetic result. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between the four RD types regarding pain, complications, and return to specific activities. All types of RD had the same low rate complication profile. The seroma rate was 0.81%. The infection rate was 0.81%, and the thromboembolism and the pneumonic embolism rate was 0%. After 2-6 years of follow-up no clinical recurrence of rectus diastasis was observed. All reoperations (14.52%) were performed due to scar deformities. Mean pain score levels were very low (<1.5) and within a week most patients returned to specific indoor and outdoor activities. Most patients were extremely satisfied with the results. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we present an updated classification system and treatment protocol to provide surgeons a safe and standardized method that produces high-quality aesthetic results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 .
BACKGROUND: This study presents a classification system and treatment method to correct Rectus diastasis (RD) during abdominoplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty seven patients undergoing abdominoplasty were enrolled between April 2014 and January 2018. Forty-three patients did not present with RD and were excluded from the analysis. Mean age was 40.32 years, mean BMI was 23.84, and minimum follow-up was 24 months. A four-type (A: mild 2-3cm, B: moderate 3-5cm, C: severe 5-7cm, and D: very severe 7-9cm) classification system is described. A different treatment method is performed in each category using continuous and interrupted absorbable sutures. Postoperatively patients filled up a questionnaire that involved the level of pain, the postoperative day they performed specific indoor/outdoor activities, and the evaluation of the aesthetic result. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between the four RD types regarding pain, complications, and return to specific activities. All types of RD had the same low rate complication profile. The seroma rate was 0.81%. The infection rate was 0.81%, and the thromboembolism and the pneumonic embolism rate was 0%. After 2-6 years of follow-up no clinical recurrence of rectus diastasis was observed. All reoperations (14.52%) were performed due to scar deformities. Mean pain score levels were very low (<1.5) and within a week most patients returned to specific indoor and outdoor activities. Most patients were extremely satisfied with the results. CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we present an updated classification system and treatment protocol to provide surgeons a safe and standardized method that produces high-quality aesthetic results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 .
Authors: Christopher J Pannucci; Ruth J Barta; Pamela R Portschy; George Dreszer; Ronald E Hoxworth; Loree K Kalliainen; Edwin G Wilkins Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Wolfgang Reinpold; Ferdinand Köckerling; Reinhard Bittner; Joachim Conze; René Fortelny; Andreas Koch; Jan Kukleta; Andreas Kuthe; Ralph Lorenz; Bernd Stechemesser Journal: Front Surg Date: 2019-01-28