A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Gluteal Implants Versus Autologous Flaps in Patients with Postbariatric Surgery Weight Loss: A Prospective Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Gluteal Projection After Lower Body Lift. | LitMetric

Background: Deformities and excess skin resulting from massive weight loss are corrected with circumferential lower body lift (LBL). The gluteal area is frequently flattened due to aggressive skin excision during LBL. Gluteal implants can circumvent this problem.

Objectives: We aimed to objectively evaluate the outcomes of gluteal augmentation with implants versus flap surgery performed simultaneously with LBL.

Methods: Between January 2014 and June 2015, twenty-seven patients underwent LBL with gluteal implants (10 patients), flaps (14 patients), or no gluteal augmentation (3 patients) in our hospital. Three-dimensional analysis was used to assess gluteal projection preoperatively and at 6 months. Gain in projection, pain scores, complications, and patient and surgeon satisfaction were compared.

Results: The mean follow-up duration was 18 months. The mean gain in projection at 6 months was 4.9 mm in the implant group, -0.5 mm in the flap group (P = 0.1), and -9.6 mm in the control group. The mean implant volume was 294.5 mL. Operation time was shorter in the flap group (192 min) than in the implant group (218 min, P = 0.001). Surgeon satisfaction was higher in the implant group (P = 0.007). Implants were more painful than flaps at 4 days and 2 weeks (P = 0.004 for both). There were 6 minor complications (60%) in the implant group versus 7 (50%) in the flap group (P = 0.94).

Conclusions: In selected patients, LBL with gluteal implants is safe and slightly increases gluteal projection.

Level Of Evidence: 2.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjx033DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gluteal implants
16
lbl gluteal
16
implant group
16
flap group
12
gluteal
10
implants versus
8
flaps patients
8
weight loss
8
gluteal projection
8
lower body
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!