Outcomes of Body Contouring Surgery After Bariatric Surgery vs. GLP-1 Receptor Agonist-Induced Weight Loss: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Body contouring surgery (BCS) addresses excess skin following significant weight loss. While bariatric surgery has been the primary intervention for massive weight loss, the rise of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) introduces a new patient population seeking BCS. Limited data exists on how GLP-1 RA-associated weight loss impacts BCS timing, procedure preferences, and complication rates.

METHODS

This retrospective study used the TriNetX database to identify adults who underwent BCS following bariatric surgery or long-term GLP-1 RA therapy (≥6 prescriptions). Propensity score matching adjusted for differences in sex, age, comorbidities, and nutritional markers. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated the timing of BCS. Additional outcomes included differences in BCS location and complication rates between weight loss methods.

RESULTS

Among those undergoing BCS, GLP-1 RA users more commonly underwent breast-focused procedures than post-bariatric patients (56.9% vs. 21.7%, OR 4.772, p<0.001), while post-bariatric patients more often received abdominal procedures (84.8% vs. 42.1%, OR 0.131, p<0.001). GLP-1 RA users had more variable BCS timing, with a greater proportion undergoing surgery within the first year of weight-loss therapy. Post-bariatric patients delayed BCS with a notable increase around 500 days post-surgery. GLP-1 RA users had lower intraoperative hemorrhage rates (0.07% vs. 0.74%, OR 0.09, p=0.021). Postoperative infection, wound dehiscence, and thromboembolic events were similar between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced intraoperative bleeding during BCS suggests potential benefits from anti-inflammatory properties of GLP-1 RAs compared to bariatric surgery weight loss. Variability in BCS timing highlights the need for standardized guidelines to optimize patient outcomes as GLP-1 RA use continues to expand.

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 .