Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30210209›Full record

ArticleJournal of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery

Arm Contouring After Massive Weight Loss: Liposuction-Assisted Brachioplasty Versus Standard Technique.

Verdiana Di Pietro, Gianfranco M Colicchia, Valerio Cervelli, Pietro Gentile

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cutaneous and aesthetic surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Arm Contouring in Patients With Massive Weight Loss: A Literature Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Postbariatric plastic surgery for body reconstruction].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Verdiana Di PietroDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy.
Gianfranco M ColicchiaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Valerio CervelliDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Pietro GentileDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Massive weight loss (MWL) brachioplasty is frequently requested for the improvement of the appearance and function of arms. Despite its diffusion, this procedure can be associated with significant complications. Liposuction-assisted brachioplasty (LAB) preserves the vascular, nervous, and lymphatic network and reduces the incidence of postoperative complications. This retrospective cohort study is aimed at analyzing two different modalities of arm contouring after MWL by evaluating the outcomes and complications. Of 31 patients (all females, average age 43.5 years), 20 were managed with standard brachioplasty represented by a swallowtail scar and monobloc resection and 11 with brachioplasty combined with aggressive liposuction. Evaluated parameters included age, body mass index, method of weight loss, and complications rate. No statistical analysis was used. Major postoperative complications (reoperation, bleeding, or thromboembolism) were not reported in both groups. The incidence of minor complications (wound separation, wound infection, and seroma) was globally 42%; the incidence of complications was significantly lower in the LAB group (9% vs. 60%). The incidence of hypertrophic scarring or keloid was higher in the control group (55% vs. 18%). Most patients were satisfied after surgery: in the LAB group, 81.8% of the patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction and 18.2% a good degree of satisfaction after 4 months of follow-up. In our experience, the LAB should be preferred in MWL patients because it has a lower rate of complications and a faster recovery than the standard technique. Proper execution requires considerable technical skill and experience.

Indexed as

Body contouringbrachioplastyliposuctionpostbariatric surgery

Identifiers

PMID30210209
PMCPMC6128150
OpenAlexW2889142409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.