SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Efficacy and Safety of Surgical Intervention in Refractory Lipedema: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-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 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.
- Author's Reply to "Commentary on 'Efficacy and Safety of Surgical Intervention in Refractory Lipedema: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis' by Coutinho et al."Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Author's Reply to "Functional Gains Outweigh Sensory Sequelae in Lipedema Surgery".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLipedema is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by symmetrical deposition of adipose tissue in the upper and lower limbs, disproportionate to the trunk. It primarily affects women. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of surgical treatment in patients with lipedema who are refractory to conservative management.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Retrospective studies involving patients who underwent surgical treatment after failing clinical management were included. Means and proportions were pooled using the inverse variance method and logit transformations, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsWe included 6 studies comprising 429 patients, with follow-up ranging from 6 months to 44 months. In this meta-analysis, surgical treatment with tumescent liposuction resulted in significant clinical improvements for patients with lipedema. The pooled mean preoperative pain score was 5.64 (95% CI: 3.67-8.69), which decreased to 1.19 (95% CI: 0.91-4.22) postoperatively. Sensitivity to touch or pressure was reduced from a preoperative mean of 5.77 (95% CI: 4.10-8.10) to 1.96 (95% CI: 1.17-3.29) after surgery. Swelling scores improved from 5.47 (95% CI: 3.73-8.02) preoperatively to 2.14 (95% CI: 1.31-3.48) postoperatively, while restriction of movement scores decreased from 3.76 (95% CI: 2.48-5.72) to 0.77 (95% CI: 0.36-1.64).
conclusionThe results of this single-arm meta-analysis, which included six studies and 429 patients with lipedema refractory to clinical treatment and undergoing surgical intervention, demonstrate that tumescent liposuction is associated with reductions in postoperative pain and edema, as well as improvements in cosmetic outcomes, quality of life, and mobility. The duration of follow-up was adequate to capture relevant clinical outcomes and adverse events. However, lipedema remains a condition that requires further high-quality studies to define the optimal therapeutic approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
41392052What 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.