ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Uncovering the Complications of Liposuction-Assisted Technologies and the Need for Caution: A Literature Overview.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnology-assisted liposuction, like lipolaser, endolaser, and ultrasound-assisted liposuction, has surged in popularity. However, with increased adoption, complications have been reported. This study aims to evaluate these devices' efficacy in lipolysis and skin tightening, critically assess associated complications, and explore preventive measures.
methodsA literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and LILACS databases to identify studies on lipolaser, endolaser, and technology-assisted liposuction. Inclusion criteria focused on studies related to complications associated with these devices. Articles unrelated to complications with these devices or written in non-English languages were excluded. Additionally, we report a case series of 10 patients treated for scars resulting from these procedures, detailing the management of these complications.
results88 studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common complications were skin burns, seromas, hematomas, infections, and scars. The studies reviewed are heterogeneous, with varying methodologies, sample sizes, and follow-up periods. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that technology-assisted liposuction is superior to traditional liposuction methods, nor are there clear benefits of using endolaser for skin tightening. While the various types of scarring observed in our series showed significant improvement, these scars will persist as lifelong sequelae.
conclusionsTechnology-assisted liposuction can be associated with complications and enduring consequences. Therefore, it is crucial to alert and prepare healthcare professionals who engage with these technologies to manage these complications effectively. Given the limitations of this study, further research is needed to determine whether these technologies provide essential advantages and to ensure their safety. 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
41495547What 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.