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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

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

Lower Body Lift in the Massive Weight Loss Patient: A New Classification and Algorithm for Gluteal Augmentation. | LitMetric

Background: An often-neglected part of the lower body lift procedure is the gluteal region. The objective of this study was to classify massive weight loss patients undergoing a body lift procedure and provide a safe, standardized approach for gluteal augmentation.

Methods: A retrospective review of all body lift procedures performed between January of 2012 and January of 2017 was conducted. Patients undergoing a lower body lift with or without gluteal augmentation were included for analysis. Patients were classified as follows: type I, minimal lower and upper back fat and deflated buttock; type II, substantial lower back fat, minimal upper back fat, and deflated buttock; type III, substantial lower and upper back fat and deflated buttock; and type IV, good buttock projection. Type I patients had gluteal implants, type II patients had autologous flap augmentation, type III patients had gluteal lipofilling, and type IV patients did not have any gluteal augmentation.

Results: Two hundred eighty patients were included for analysis. Two hundred thirty-eight underwent concomitant gluteal augmentation (85 percent): 213 had autologous flaps (76 percent), 13 had gluteal implants (5 percent), and 12 had large-volume lipofilling (4 percent). Forty-two patients underwent a body lift with no gluteal augmentation (15 percent). Gluteal augmentation did not increase the rate of complications. In both groups, no skin necrosis, venous thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism was reported. Patients who had a sleeve gastrectomy had significantly lower odds of complications compared with gastric bypass (OR, 0.45; p = 0.017).

Conclusion: A standardized algorithmic approach for gluteal augmentation may optimize the result without increasing the complication rate.

Clinical Question/level Of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000004178DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

body lift
24
gluteal augmentation
24
lower body
12
gluteal
12
upper fat
12
fat deflated
12
deflated buttock
12
buttock type
12
type patients
12
patients gluteal
12

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!