Abdominal Hypertension after Abdominal Plication in Postbariatric Patients: The Consequence in the Postoperative Recovery.

Background Abdominoplasty with abdominal plication increases intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and has been previously associated with limited diaphragmatic excursion and respiratory dysfunctions. Many factors found in abdominoplasties and among postbariatric patients predispose them to a higher occurrence. This study aims to evaluate the impact of abdominal plication among postbariatric patients, assess whether the plication increases their IAP, and analyze how these IAP correlate to their postoperative outcome. Methods This prospective study was performed on all patients who underwent circumferential Fleur-De-Lis abdominoplasty. For this intended study, the IAP was measured by an intravesical minimally invasive approach in three stages: after the initiation of general anesthesia, after a 10-cm abdominal wall plication and skin closure, and 24 hours after the procedure. Results We included 46 patients, of which 41 were female and 5 were male. Before the bariatric procedure, these patients had an average maximum weight of 121.4 kg and an average maximum body mass index of 45.78 kg/m 2 ; 7 were grade I obese patients, 10 were grade II, and 29 were grade III. Only three patients were operated on with a gastric sleeve and 43 with gastric bypass. We presented six patients with transitory intra-abdominal hypertension in the first 24 hours, all of them from the grade I obesity group, the highest presented was 14.3 mm Hg. We presented 15% (7/46) of complication rates, which were only four seroma and five dehiscence; two patients presented both seroma and wound dehiscence. Conclusion Performing a 10-cm abdominal wall plication or greater represents a higher risk for intra-abdominal hypertension, slower general recovery, and possibly higher complication rate in patients who presented a lower degree of obesity (grade I) at the moment of the bariatric surgery.

How to stratify the risk of thrombosis for esthetic plastic surgery? The proposal of a new scale.

Scales to qualify the risk of thrombosis do not include all thrombogenic factors that are generated in esthetic plastic surgery. Methods: We performed a systematic review to assess the risk of thrombosis in plastic surgery. Thrombogenic factors in esthetic surgery were analyzed by a panel of experts. We proposed a scale with 2 versions. In the first version, factors were stratified according to their impact on the possible risk of thrombosis. The second version includes the same factors but in a simplified form. We evaluated the efficacy of the proposed scale by comparing it with the Caprini score; we scored the risk in 124 cases and controls. Results: Using the Caprini score, we found that 81.45% of the patients studied and 62.5% of the cases of thrombosis were observed in the low-risk group. Only 1 case of thrombosis was reported in the high-risk group. Using the stratified version of the scale, we found that the low-risk group comprised 25% of the patients, and there were no cases of thrombosis. The high-risk group included 14.51% of patients; 10 presented thrombosis (62.5%). The proposed scale was very effective in detecting both low-risk and high-risk patients undergoing esthetic surgery procedures.

What is the Process for Breast Implant Manufacturing? Inside Eight Breast Implant Factories.

BACKGROUND: With the recent association between breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma, breast implants have become the focus of many warnings. Surgeons and health professionals are not involved in all the processes of the manufacturing and distribution of this product. Not all countries have breast implant factories that are easy for surgeons to visit and better understand the manufacturing process. METHODS: A questionnaire about breast implant manufacturing and distribution was validated in consensus and form. Two plastic surgeons visited eight factories and administered the questionnaire in the presence of a photographer, who documented that the questionnaire was answered in the same way for all visits. Once the visitors finished obtaining the information (questionnaire responses and video recording), this information was validated by a different member of a safety committee in Mexico. For the observations to be considered valid, the information from the questionnaire and the video must be presented. RESULTS: We visited eight factories: three in France (Sebbin, Arion and Eurosilicone), two in Costa Rica (Allergan and Motiva), one in Scotland (Nagor), one in Germany (Polytech) and one in Korea (Bellagel). In four factories (Eurosilicone, Motiva, Nagor and Sebbin), the information on the process for manufacturing an implant was observed and recorded (validated). The quality laboratory was visited, and video recording was performed in six factories (Bellagel, Eurosilicone, Motiva, Nagor, Polytech and Sebbin). CONCLUSION: It was possible to observe and verify that most of the companies that distribute breast implants in Mexico perform their manufacturing processes according to ISO standards. A breast implant registry can help people further understand how BIA-ALCL will behave in the future and allow more tests to better understand this pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: 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 .