Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2013
Surgical pocket location for gluteal implants: a systematic review.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Flores-Lima Gerardo, Eppley Barry L, Dimas Joaquín R, Navarro David E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safest pocket location for gluteal augmentation surgery using implants still is unknown. This study conducted a systematic review to derive evidence-based recommendations concerning the safest type of pocket location (sub-muscular, subfascial, intramuscular, or intramuscular XYZ method) for silicone implants in terms of acute and long-term complication rates.
METHODS: Articles from medline that met predetermined criteria were included in the study. The outcomes of interest included wound dehiscence, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, implant asymmetry, and capsular contracture. Pooling of statistical data was performed when possible.
RESULTS: The authors reviewed 30 articles regarding five different types of pocket locations for gluteal implants described since 1969. The most common complications after gluteal augmentation surgery using implants are wound dehiscence (10.29%), seroma (2.49%), wound infection (1.12%), and hematoma (0.24%). Fulfilled expectations after surgery were assessed differently among studies and could not be compared.
CONCLUSIONS: The pocket locations for gluteal augmentation surgery with implants that have the lowest complication rates are the following: intramuscular XZY method (13.18%), sub-muscular (17.60%), intramuscular (18.05%), and subfascial (54.84%).
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 .
METHODS: Articles from medline that met predetermined criteria were included in the study. The outcomes of interest included wound dehiscence, wound infection, seroma, hematoma, implant asymmetry, and capsular contracture. Pooling of statistical data was performed when possible.
RESULTS: The authors reviewed 30 articles regarding five different types of pocket locations for gluteal implants described since 1969. The most common complications after gluteal augmentation surgery using implants are wound dehiscence (10.29%), seroma (2.49%), wound infection (1.12%), and hematoma (0.24%). Fulfilled expectations after surgery were assessed differently among studies and could not be compared.
CONCLUSIONS: The pocket locations for gluteal augmentation surgery with implants that have the lowest complication rates are the following: intramuscular XZY method (13.18%), sub-muscular (17.60%), intramuscular (18.05%), and subfascial (54.84%).
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 .