ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

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

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4733.19.08045-3

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

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