Comparative Efficacy of Adjuvant Technologies for Skin Tightening in Liposuction: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis.
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] Liposuction is the most frequently performed plastic surgery procedure. Skin laxity remains a persistent challenge after the procedure. To address this issue, various devices aimed at promoting skin retraction have been explored, although comparative data are inconsistent.
[OBJECTIVES] The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on skin retraction rates associated with different liposuction devices and critically evaluate the quality of the evidence. The secondary aim was to present a comparative summary of reported retraction percentages to highlight inconsistencies and to guide future research.
[METHODS] A systematic review was conducted across four major databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected by two independent authors, and included articles underwent qualitative synthesis and risk of bias assessment.
[RESULTS] Nineteen studies were included. The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies (I = 96.8%) and a serious risk of bias in approximately 50% of the studies. The calculated weighted average skin retraction percentages for each technology were as follows: Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction (RFAL), 31.38%; Laser-Assisted Liposuction (LAL), 29.87%; Ultrasound-Assisted Liposuction (UAL), 17.0%; and Suction-Assisted Liposuction (SAL), 12.35%.
[CONCLUSION] Evidence on skin retraction from adjuvant liposuction technologies is limited by significant study heterogeneity and a high risk of bias, precluding firm conclusions regarding the superiority of any single device. This review underscores the urgent need for larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies to validate the clinical utility of these technologies.
[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I] 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 .
[OBJECTIVES] The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on skin retraction rates associated with different liposuction devices and critically evaluate the quality of the evidence. The secondary aim was to present a comparative summary of reported retraction percentages to highlight inconsistencies and to guide future research.
[METHODS] A systematic review was conducted across four major databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected by two independent authors, and included articles underwent qualitative synthesis and risk of bias assessment.
[RESULTS] Nineteen studies were included. The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies (I = 96.8%) and a serious risk of bias in approximately 50% of the studies. The calculated weighted average skin retraction percentages for each technology were as follows: Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction (RFAL), 31.38%; Laser-Assisted Liposuction (LAL), 29.87%; Ultrasound-Assisted Liposuction (UAL), 17.0%; and Suction-Assisted Liposuction (SAL), 12.35%.
[CONCLUSION] Evidence on skin retraction from adjuvant liposuction technologies is limited by significant study heterogeneity and a high risk of bias, precluding firm conclusions regarding the superiority of any single device. This review underscores the urgent need for larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies to validate the clinical utility of these technologies.
[LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I] 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 .
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 시술 | liposuction
|
지방흡입 | dict | 8 | |
| 시술 | sal
|
지방흡입 | dict | 1 | |
| 해부 | Skin
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | RFAL
→ Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | UAL
→ Ultrasound-Assisted Liposuction
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | [BACKGROUND] Liposuction
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | [OBJECTIVES]
|
scispacy | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Humans; Lipectomy; Treatment Outcome; Female; Skin Aging; Laser Therapy; Male; Esthetics
📑 인용 관계
이 논문이 참조한 문헌 28
- 1470-nm Radial fiber-assisted liposuction for body contouring and facial fat grafting.
- Aesthetic Nonexcisional Arm Contouring.
- The use of radiofrequency-assisted lipolysis with radiofrequency microneedling in premature jowl and…
- Efficacy and safety of 1440-nm Nd:YAG laser on lower face and neck rejuvenation.
- Multimodal Radiofrequency Application for Lower Face and Neck Laxity.
- Evidence-Based Practice in Liposuction.
- Radiofrequency-assisted Liposuction for Neck and Lower Face Adipodermal Remodeling and Contouring.
- Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction Compared with Aggressive Superficial, Subdermal Liposuction of t…
- Liposuction devices: technology update.
- Body contouring by lipolysis: a 5-year experience with over 3000 cases.
외부 PMID 18건 (DB 미수집)
🔗 함께 등장하는 도메인
이 논문이 속한 카테고리와 같은 논문에서 자주 함께 다뤄지는 카테고리들
관련 논문
- Quantitative Assessment of Cannula Kinematics in Liposuction Surgical Procedures Using a Marker-Based Tracking System.
- Fat harvesting protocol for enhanced stem cell viability - pilot study.
- Scarless Infragluteal Fixation (SIF): Correction of Post-Liposuction Infragluteal Deformity.
- [Super microsurgical lymphaticovenular anastomosis for limb lymphedema: An outcome analysis based on clinical stage and indocyanine green pattern].
- Iatrogenic pneumothorax associated with surgeries at anatomically thoracic-adjacent and non-adjacent sites: case report and scoping review.