ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2024
Liposuction Port-Site Protection: Necessity or Needless Expense?
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Liposuction is the most common cosmetic plastic surgery procedure in the United States, and lipo-aspiration for fat grafting is gaining in popularity. The results are effective, but complications include seroma, contour irregularities, skin necrosis, and even death. Scarring, dehiscence, and infection at the port site, although minor, are a common and less-discussed problem. To date, no study has examined the local complication profile of patients treated with and without port-site protection. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of silicone port protectors to decrease local complications after liposuction. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 60 consecutive patients treated for cosmetic liposuction or autologous fat transfer between August 2022 and March 2024. The first 30 patients underwent tumescent-based lipo-aspiration without port-site protectors and the following 30 with placement of a segment of suction tubing to protect the skin. Records were reviewed to determine patient demographics, amount of tumescent and aspirate, and complications at the port site. Results: Sixty patients completed the study. There were no significant differences in patient demographics and surgical data between groups. Ten patients in the unprotected group and 2 in the protected group experienced port-site complications (33.3% vs 6.7%, Conclusions: In this cohort, patients treated with a port protection device suffered fewer local complications, requiring less wound management, steroid injections, and revisions. Level of Evidence 3 Therapeutic:
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.