SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparative Efficacy of Adjuvant Technologies for Skin Tightening in Liposuction: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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.
- Novel Minimally Invasive Mastoid Sling for a Nonsurgical Neck Lift: A Combination of Liposuction, Thermal Energy, and Suture Suspension for Neck Rejuvenation.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiposuction is the most frequently performed plastic surgery procedure. Skin laxity remains a persistent challenge after the procedure. To address this issue, various devices aimed at promoting skin retraction have been explored, although comparative data are inconsistent.
objectivesThe primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on skin retraction rates associated with different liposuction devices and critically evaluate the quality of the evidence. The secondary aim was to present a comparative summary of reported retraction percentages to highlight inconsistencies and to guide future research.
methodsA systematic review was conducted across four major databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected by two independent authors, and included articles underwent qualitative synthesis and risk of bias assessment.
resultsNineteen studies were included. The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies (I
conclusionEvidence on skin retraction from adjuvant liposuction technologies is limited by significant study heterogeneity and a high risk of bias, precluding firm conclusions regarding the superiority of any single device. This review underscores the urgent need for larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies to validate the clinical utility of these technologies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: 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
41152465What 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.