SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Comparing the Outcomes of Scalpel and Diathermocoagulation Dissection in Abdominoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Donor-site Seroma in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Pooled Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Drainless Lipoabdominoplasty Using Progressive Tension Sutures, Scarpa's Fascia Preservation, and Minimal Cautery in 350 Consecutive Cases.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominoplasty, an emerging surgical procedure worldwide, associated with complications, as seroma, infection, and hematoma. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the outcomes of abdominoplasty procedures performed using a scalpel versus a diathermocoagulation device (diathermy monopolar electrocautery), aiming to find a safer approach with fewer complications.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search in November 2023 using PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Ovid Chocrane databases. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies and the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tools were used to assess risk of bias for observational studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The data were analyzed using RevMan software.
resultsSix articles (1135 patients) were included, 521 patients were operated using a scalpel and 614 using electrocautery. Our analysis suggests that both seroma and drain output were seen more among the electrocautery group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.62 (95% CI [0.39, 0.97], p = 0.04) and - 103.63 (95% CI [- 205.67, - 1.59], p = 0.05), respectively. It is important to note the high heterogeneity seen among the studies discussing the total drain output. Additionally, we did not find any statistical significance between both techniques in terms of the rate of hematoma, wound infection, operation time, and hospital stay length.
conclusionWhen comparing the use of scalpel and electrocautery dissection in abdominoplasty, higher rates of seroma and total drain output are significantly associated with electrocautery dissection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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
38886194What 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.