Carmen Giuglea1, Elena-Cristina Burlacu2, Serban Dumitrache1,3, Mirela-Georgiana Tene1, Andrei Marin3, Dana Mihaela Jianu4, Silviu-Adrian Marinescu3,5. 1. Clinical Emergency Hospital Sf. Ioan, Bucharest, Romania. 2. Clinical Emergency Hospital Sf. Ioan, Bucharest, Romania. elena.burlacu89@gmail.com. 3. Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania. 4. ProEstetica Medical, International Society for Regenerative Medicine & Surgery, Bucharest, Romania. 5. Clinical Emergency Hospital Bagdasar-Arseni, Bucharest, Romania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lower body lift procedure is one of the most common procedures in postbariatric surgery, which can be followed by postoperative complications that delay the healing time. The purpose of this study was to analyse whether the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) as a replacement for the classical drainage method would provide better postoperative results with fewer complications. METHODS: The authors reviewed their experience with 46 consecutive patients that underwent lower body lift surgery from 2018 to 2021. They were divided into two groups: 23 of them received NPWT as drainage method and another 23 received classical active drains. We assessed the complication rates and types between the two groups to demonstrate the efficiency of NPWT as a support in the surgical protocol. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included in this study. Two equal groups formed by 23 patients were analysed for age, sex, type of weight loss, type of circumferential lower body lift, type of drainage, quantity of drainage, time of drain usance, postoperative complications, operation time, hospital stay and frequency of hospital visits. The group that received NPWT had a 26.08% rate of complications as compared with the drain group that had a 47.8% complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study is performed as a comparison between negative pressure wound therapy and classical drainage method in lower body lift surgery, as a new method of reducing the postoperative complications. By achieving faster closure of large, undermining areas, it concludes in a lower risk of seroma or hematoma formation. 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: Lower body lift procedure is one of the most common procedures in postbariatric surgery, which can be followed by postoperative complications that delay the healing time. The purpose of this study was to analyse whether the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) as a replacement for the classical drainage method would provide better postoperative results with fewer complications. METHODS: The authors reviewed their experience with 46 consecutive patients that underwent lower body lift surgery from 2018 to 2021. They were divided into two groups: 23 of them received NPWT as drainage method and another 23 received classical active drains. We assessed the complication rates and types between the two groups to demonstrate the efficiency of NPWT as a support in the surgical protocol. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included in this study. Two equal groups formed by 23 patients were analysed for age, sex, type of weight loss, type of circumferential lower body lift, type of drainage, quantity of drainage, time of drain usance, postoperative complications, operation time, hospital stay and frequency of hospital visits. The group that received NPWT had a 26.08% rate of complications as compared with the drain group that had a 47.8% complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study is performed as a comparison between negative pressure wound therapy and classical drainage method in lower body lift surgery, as a new method of reducing the postoperative complications. By achieving faster closure of large, undermining areas, it concludes in a lower risk of seroma or hematoma formation. 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: James E Mitchell; Ross D Crosby; Troy W Ertelt; Joanna M Marino; David B Sarwer; J Kevin Thompson; Kathryn L Lancaster; Heather Simonich; L Michael Howell Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2008-06-17 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: K J Stewart; D A Stewart; B Coghlan; D H Harrison; B M Jones; N Waterhouse Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Luigi Losco; Ana Claudia Roxo; Carlos W Roxo; Federico Lo Torto; Alberto Bolletta; Alessandro de Sire; Dicle Aksoyler; Diego Ribuffo; Emanuele Cigna; Carlos P Roxo Journal: Aesthetic Plast Surg Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: Keith C Neaman; Shannon D Armstrong; Marissa E Baca; Mark Albert; Douglas L Vander Woude; John D Renucci Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Marie-Charlotte Dutot; Kevin Serror; Omar Al Ameri; Marc Chaouat; Maurice Mimoun; David Boccara Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.730