A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Study of Tissue Liquefaction Liposuction vs Suction-Assisted Liposuction.
A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Contralateral Study of Tissue Liquefaction Liposuction vs Suction-Assisted Liposuction.
复制标题
组织液化吸脂术与抽吸辅助吸脂术的多中心、前瞻性、随机、对侧研究。
DOI：
10.1093/asj/sjy001
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Andrew,MarkS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hunstad,JosephP;Godek,ChristopherP;VanNatta,BruceW;Kortesis,BillG;Bharti,Gaurav;Crantford,JohnC;Daniels,MarkA;Andrew,MarkS
背景组织液化吸脂术（TLL）是一种新型的能量源，它利用一股温热、低压、脉冲的生理盐水来提取脂肪组织。ObjectivesComparison TLL to suction-assisted liposuction（SAL），以确定哪种装置对外科医生更有效，并为患者提供更好的恢复。TLL和SAL手术之间的压痛和切口外观评级。手术效率和外观的脂肪抽吸也compared.ResultsAll 31例患者成功地完成了研究。对于TLL和SAL手术，平均输注体积（1.242 vs 1.276 L）和抽吸的上清液脂肪体积（704 vs 649 mL）在统计学上相似。TLL的中位脂肪提取率快于SAL（35.6 vs 25 mL/min;P< 0.0001），TLL与SAL手术的卒中发生率降低（48 vs 120卒中/min;P< 0.0001），两者均具有统计学显著性。瘀伤，肿胀，治疗部位压痛，切口外观的平均总评分较低，表明改善患者恢复TLL side.ConclusionsTLL和SAL技术产生可比的脂肪抽吸量。与SAL相比，TLL的脂肪提取率快42%，完成手术所需的手臂运动减少68%，这两项差异均具有统计学显著性。与SAL侧相比，TLL侧的瘀伤和肿胀减少，切口部位外观改善，压痛减少。证据等级：2
BackgroundTissue liquefaction liposuction (TLL) deploys a novel energy source utilizing a stream of warmed, low-pressurized, and pulsed saline to extract fat tissue.ObjectivesCompare TLL to suction-assisted liposuction (SAL) to determine which device is more efficient for surgeons and provides better recovery for patients.MethodsThirty-one adult female patients were followed prospectively in a contralateral study design comparing differences in bruising, swelling, tenderness, and incision appearance ratings between TLL and SAL procedures. Surgical efficiency and appearance of the lipoaspirate were also compared.ResultsAll 31 patients successfully completed the study. For TLL and SAL procedures, the average volumes of infusion (1.242 vs 1.276 L) and aspirated supernatant fat (704 vs 649 mL) were statistically similar. TLL median fat extraction rate was faster than SAL (35.6 vs 25 mL/min;P< 0.0001), and stroke rate was reduced in TLL vs SAL procedures (48 vs 120 strokes/min;P< 0.0001), and both were statistically significant. The mean total scores for bruising, swelling, treatment site tenderness, and incision appearance were lower, indicating improved patient recovery on the TLL side.ConclusionsTLL and SAL techniques produced comparable volume of fat aspirate. TLL demonstrated a 42% faster fat extraction rate and a 68% reduction in arm movements needed to complete the procedure compared to SAL, both of these differences are statistically significant. The TLL side was noted to have reduced bruising and swelling and improved incision site appearance with less tenderness compared to the SAL side.Level of Evidence: 2