Home > Riviste > Minerva Surgery > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Chirurgica 2020 February;75(1) > Minerva Chirurgica 2020 February;75(1):37-42

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Chirurgica 2020 February;75(1):37-42

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4733.19.08045-3

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Abdominoplasty after bariatric surgery: comparison of three different techniques

Vincenzo PILONE 1, 2, 3, Salvatore TRAMONTANO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , Carmen CUTOLO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Antonio VITIELLO 7, 8, 9, Sergio BRONGO 1, 2, 3

1 Department of Medicine, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 2 Department of Surgery, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 3 Department of Dentistry, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 4 Unit of General Surgery, Fucito Hospital, University Hospital of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 5 Unit of Bariatric Surgery, Fucito Hospital, University Hospital of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 6 Unit of Emergency Surgery, Fucito Hospital, University Hospital of Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 7 Department of Gastroenterology, Federico II University Hospital of Naples, Naples, Italy; 8 Department of Endocrinology, Federico II University Hospital of Naples, Naples, Italy; 9 Department of Surgery, Federico II University Hospital of Naples, Naples, Italy



BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty after massive weight loss is not a cosmetic procedure. The aim of this study was to compare three different techniques for postbariatric abdominoplasty.
METHODS: All postbariatric patients that have undergone abdominoplasty from January 2013 to December 2016 were included in the study. Patients were divided into 3 groups: subjects who underwent standard procedure were allocated ingroup A; those cases performed using a synthetic glue were assigned to group B; cases performed with an energy device were inserted in group C. Operative time, length of stay and complications were recorded.
RESULTS: Seventy-one abdominoplasties were performed in the selected period. Mean operative time was shorter (P<0.01) in group C (94.3±2.7 minutes) than in group A (112.1±16.8 minutes) and in group B (121±13.2 minutes). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced (P<0.01) in group C (2.4±0.7) when compared to group A (3.5±0.6 days) and group B (3.1±0.5 days). Bleeding occurred in 21 (29.5%) patients (15 in group A, 4 in groupB, 3 in group C; P<0.01). Seroma was detected in 22(30.9%) subjects (14 in group A, 2in group B, 6 in group C; P<0.01). Wound dehiscence and umbilical necrosis were recorded in 7 (9.9%) and 9 (12.6%) patients respectively, without statistical differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Both synthetic glue and energy device improve outcomes of postbariatric abdominoplasties. The glue reduces rates of bleeding and seroma. The energy deviceimproves intraoperative hemostasis and shortens operative time.


KEY WORDS: Bariatric surgery; Abdominoplasty; Surgery, plastic

inizio pagina