ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Hemostatic Agents Do Not Significantly Affect Seroma Formation in Abdominal Body Contouring.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObjective: Seroma formation is plaguing complication in abdominal body contouring surgery (ABCS) that has been loosely associated with the use of intraoperative hemostatic agents. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between hemostatic agent usage and seroma development following ABCS.
methodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing ABCS between 2010 and 2020 was completed. Cases who received hemostatic agents were matched to controls (1:2) based on potential confounders including age, BMI, and ASA score. Demographic data, operative details, and postoperative complications including development of seroma, hematoma, venous thromboembolism, wound dehiscence, and delayed wound healing were collected.
resultsSeven hundred and seven patients were included in the study. Sixty-five patients (9.2%) received at least one hemostatic agent. The most used agents were topical thrombin (n = 33, 50.1%), dry matrices including oxidized cellulose, microporous polysaccharides, and absorbable gelatin matrices (n = 15, 23.1%) followed by combination fibrin sealant/thrombin preparations (n = 9, 14.0%). No significant differences with respect to demographic data or medical comorbidities between the cases and controls were identified. Bivariate analysis demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of development of seroma (OR: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.23-1.99, p = 0.781), hematoma (OR: 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95-14.65, p = 0.060), venous thromboembolism (OR: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44-3.81, p = 0.433).
conclusionHemostatic agent use, regardless of type, does not significantly affect the risk of seroma, hematoma, and venous thromboembolism development, nor does it influence the rates of delayed wound healing or wound dehiscence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.