ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Optimizing the Incision Marking in Abdominoplasty: 2-year Series.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The resultant horizontal scar in abdominoplasty is primarily the result of 3 main factors: (1) preoperative skin marking planning, (2) undermining area, and (3) dermal adipose flap traction symmetry. Although distinct preoperative marking routines have been described in the literature, there are few records of the systematic use of a standard template for that purpose. The authors created the template used in this study 12 years ago and now make an objective critical analysis of its results from the last 2 years. Methods: Over a period of 30 months, 147 patients underwent abdominoplasty using the standard template to optimize the preoperative skin markings. All patients underwent an evaluation, through digital photograph, by 2 independent senior plastic surgeons, using an objective grading system for aesthetic outcomes proposed by Strasser, at least 6 months after the operation. All resultant scar shapes underwent a measurement analysis through Mirror Image software, version 6.0. Results: According to the Strasser objective grade system, 147 (95%) patients were considered to have good and excellent results. Five (4%) patients were considered moderate, and 3 (2%) had poor results. The analysis of the scar shape through the Mirror software has shown reproducibility with an angle variation of only 3 degrees. The overall complication rate was 6%. Conclusions: The template described provides the reproducibility of its results, creating a symmetric and balanced abdominoplasty horizontal scar, saving operative time, and lowering cost.
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.