ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Management of Plastic Surgery Complications at a Tertiary Medical Center after Aesthetic Procedures.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
- Gaps in public health surveillance of elective surgery: a national analysis of inpatient data, COVID-19 impact, and coding validity in Germany (2006-2023).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Who Owns the Complications? A Call for Accountability in Cosmetic Medical Tourism.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aesthetic plastic surgery industry has seen tremendous growth, with Americans spending an estimated 20 billion dollars on procedures in 2020. However, the effect of complications from these procedures on the healthcare system is poorly understood. This study aims to create awareness regarding aesthetic procedure complications through the scope of plastic surgeons at a tertiary medical facility. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who received care at a single academic tertiary referral center over 5 years for complications from a cash-paid aesthetic procedure at an outside facility. Physician and hospital billing data were analyzed for relevant encounters. Results: Patients in this study (n = 40) presented to the emergency department most frequently with complications secondary to abdominoplasty (35%), breast augmentation (27.5%), and injectable fillers (17.5%). The most common complications were infection (32.5%) and wound dehiscence (22.5%). Of those evaluated, 50% required inpatient admission. Additionally, 42.5% required surgical intervention. The distribution of payors included Medicaid (55%), commercial insurance (30%), and Medicare (7.5%), and 7.5% were uninsured. For physician billing, the total gross collection ratio was 21.3%, whereas the hospital billing total gross collection ratio was 25.16%. Conclusions: Larger referral hospitals are well-suited to support the aesthetic community with complication management; however, the care required to serve this population is resource-intensive. These data advocate for thorough closed-loop patient-surgeon communication regarding risk-benefit analysis and detailed courses of action should complications arise. Likewise, stronger communication between ambulatory surgical centers and tertiary referral centers may also help minimize complications and subsequent healthcare needs.
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.