Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2018
A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Study of Tissue Liquefaction Liposuction vs Suction-Assisted Liposuction.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTissue liquefaction liposuction (TLL) deploys a novel energy source utilizing a stream of warmed, low-pressurized, and pulsed saline to extract fat tissue.
objectivesCompare TLL to suction-assisted liposuction (SAL) to determine which device is more efficient for surgeons and provides better recovery for patients.
methodsThirty-one adult female patients were followed prospectively in a contralateral study design comparing differences in bruising, swelling, tenderness, and incision appearance ratings between TLL and SAL procedures. Surgical efficiency and appearance of the lipoaspirate were also compared.
resultsAll 31 patients successfully completed the study. For TLL and SAL procedures, the average volumes of infusion (1.242 vs 1.276 L) and aspirated supernatant fat (704 vs 649 mL) were statistically similar. TLL median fat extraction rate was faster than SAL (35.6 vs 25 mL/min; P < 0.0001), and stroke rate was reduced in TLL vs SAL procedures (48 vs 120 strokes/min; P < 0.0001), and both were statistically significant. The mean total scores for bruising, swelling, treatment site tenderness, and incision appearance were lower, indicating improved patient recovery on the TLL side.
conclusionsTLL and SAL techniques produced comparable volume of fat aspirate. TLL demonstrated a 42% faster fat extraction rate and a 68% reduction in arm movements needed to complete the procedure compared to SAL, both of these differences are statistically significant. The TLL side was noted to have reduced bruising and swelling and improved incision site appearance with less tenderness compared to the SAL side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.