SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Stigmata of Stigmata of Abdominoplasty: A Systematic Review and 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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbdominoplasty aims to remove excess skin and adipose tissue from the abdomen while tightening the abdominal musculature. A flat appearance can be achieved with traditional abdominoplasty techniques. The objective of the research was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the stigma associated with abdominoplasty and strategies for its prevention and management.
methodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles addressing our aim. We included all studies that mentioned different abdominoplasty techniques and their effects on complications, aesthetic outcomes, or patient satisfaction with the procedures.
resultsThe percentage of patients pleased with abdominoplasty was 98.2% according to a pooled analysis of 0.982 (95% CI 0.971-0.992). The incidence of umbilical problems among the study's patients was 1.58% with a pooled analysis of 0.01 (95%CI -0.001-0.021). The occurrence of hypertrophic scars was documented in 10 studies involving 1533 patients. The proportion of hypertrophic scars was reported to be 2.4% in a pooled analysis, with a pooled estimate of 0.024 (95% CI: 0.011-0.037).
conclusionCertain surgical approaches, such as ruler-guided incision marking and high-definition techniques, may reduce scar asymmetry and improve aesthetic satisfaction; however, these observations are based on low-level evidence and should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
42509279What 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.