ArticleScientific reports2025
Association of post-liposuction edema on body composition and weight reduction efficiency.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Edema following liposuction can obscure surgical outcomes and increase the risk of complications, emphasizing the need for quantitative evaluation. This study aimed to evaluate the association between postoperative edema severity and changes in weight and body composition, as well as to assess fat reduction efficiency across different edema severity groups in patients undergoing local anesthetic minimally invasive liposuction (LAMS). This study analyzed multicenter cohort data collected in 2024 from 20 branches of the 365MC Hospital in South Korea, including 3832 patients who underwent LAMS. Postoperative edema severity was assessed using a standardized self-report questionnaire and patients were classified into three groups: no edema, mild, and moderate to severe edema. The primary outcome was postoperative changes in body weight and total body water (TBW), using bioelectrical impedance analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s tests were used to compare changes across edema groups, while multivariable linear regression evaluated associations between aspirated fat volume and postoperative outcomes. Weight reduction efficiency (per 50 cc of aspirated fat) was also assessed. Subgroup analyses were conducted by seven anatomical regions: abdomen, arms, back, buttocks, calves, flanks, and thighs. Of the 3832 patients (3825 females [99.82%]), the majority were classified into the mild edema group (90.34%), followed by moderate to severe (5.61%) and no edema (4.04%). Aspirated fat volume was associated with reductions in body weight across all groups, although the strength of this association declined with increasing edema severity, from an adjusted β of -0.06 (95% CI, -0.07 to -0.05) kg/cc in the no edema group to − 0.05 (-0.09 to -0.01) kg/cc in the moderate to severe group. In contrast, TBW showed the weakest and non-significant association, suggesting that postoperative fluid retention may obscure the weight-reducing effect of aspirated fat. Regional analysis indicated that the buttocks showed the highest efficiency (-11.41 [95% CI, -26.76 to 3.93] kg/50 cc in the no edema group; -5.89 [-17.64 to 5.87] kg/50 cc in moderate to severe), while the thighs showed the lowest (-5.74 [-9.82 to -1.68] kg/50 cc and -2.02 [-3.85 to 0.19] kg/50 cc, respectively). This study investigates the potential association of edema severity on postoperative body composition changes and fat reduction efficiency following LAMS. These findings highlight the clinical impact of edema on surgical outcomes and the importance of tailored postoperative management to enhance recovery and patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
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.