RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To compare the fat transfer combined with plasma energy and only fat transfer methods for genital rejuvenation and to investigate the efficacy enhancing properties of plasma energy. METHODS: Forty-six patients were equally divided into two groups according to the surgical method as the group A (n = 23) and the group B (n = 23). The patients in the group A received only fat transfer, while the patients in the group B received fat transfer combined with plasma energy. Both groups were scheduled for postoperative follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The lifting effect on the labia majora after the procedure was evaluated with photographs and patient satisfaction questionnaires including the female genital self-image scale (FGSIS). RESULTS: The mean age of all participants was 32.8 ± 5.1 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.7 ± 3.4 kg/m2. The mean preoperative FGSIS scores were similar between the groups (p = 0.542). The mean total FGSIS score was 18.8 ± 1.4 in the group A and 18.3 ± 1.5 in the group B in the preoperative period. However, the mean FGSIS scores at 1, 3, and 6 months were significantly higher in the group B than the group A (p = 0.032, p = 0.012, and p = 0.009, respectively). At 6 months of follow-up, the mean total FGSIS score was 20.7 ± 1.4 in the group A and 22.3 ± 1.5 in the group B, indicating a statistically significant difference (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: This novel technique is a more minimally invasive technique compared to other energy modalities with lower lateral and vertical energy dissipation than other conventional methods, and labia majora fat filling augmentation application can be performed with more permanent and longer-lasting outcomes than fat transfer only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To investigate the association between vitamin D status and the clinical severity of COVID-19 in pregnant women. METHODS: This prospective case-control study included 147 pregnant women with COVID-19 and 300 matched controls. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin (25(OH)D) concentrations were measured on admission. Patients with mild-to-moderate disease (n = 114, 77.6%) and severe-to-critical disease (n = 33, 22.4%) were classified as symptomatic patients who did not require oxygen support and those who received oxygen support, respectively. SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates, clinical severity of COVID-19, and pulmonary involvement were compared according to vitamin D status. RESULTS: Serum 25(OH)D concentrations were found to be 36.6 ± 26.8 and 31.3 ± 20.7 nmol/L in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 and healthy controls, respectively (p = 0.001). The clinical severity of pregnant women with COVID-19 did not differ concerning vitamin D deficiency (RR = 0.568, 95% CI [0.311-1.036]; p = 0.065), even after excluding patients on vitamin supplementation (RR = 0.625, 95% CI [0.275-1.419]; p = 0.261). Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was not related to vitamin D status in the overall cohort of pregnant women (RR = 0.767, 95% CI [0.570-1.030]; p = 0.078). Pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 was found to be similar between patients with vitamin D deficiency and adequate vitamin D levels (RR = 0.954; 95% CI [0.863-1.055]; p = 0.357). CONCLUSION: The clinical severity and pulmonary involvement of COVID-19 may not be associated with vitamin D status in pregnant women. Vitamin D deficiency/adequacy rates were comparable in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 and healthy pregnant women.