Abdominoplasty and seroma: a prospective randomised study comparing scalpel and handheld electrocautery dissection.

BACKGROUND: Seroma formation remains a significant problem in abdominoplasty procedures--the cause of which remains to be elucidated. It has been suggested that one of the causative factors for seroma formation is the use of handheld electrocautery as opposed to scalpel for abdominal flap dissection. METHODS: Prospective trial in 102 consecutive abdominoplasty patients randomised to have abdominal flap dissection with either handheld electrocautery device on 'coagulation setting' or sharp dissection with scalpel and monopolar electrocautery forceps for haemostasis. In all other aspects the surgical technique was identical between the two groups. All drains were removed at 48 h, irrespective of drain volume. Primary outcome measure is postoperative seroma formation on clinical examination, secondary outcome measures are drain volume, weight of tissue removed, effect of liposuction and patient BMI. RESULTS: Both study groups were similar in demographics with no significant difference in weight of tissue excised, BMI, drain output or post operative complictions. There was no significant difference in seroma formation rates between the handheld electrocautery group (17.2%) and the sharp dissection group (20.1%). Overall, the seroma rate was 18.6%. Liposuction to the flanks at the time of abdominoplasty was found to significantly increase the incidence of seroma, compared to patients having abdominoplasty alone. CONCLUSIONS: Use of handheld electrocautery rather than scalpel for tissue dissection does not lead to increased seroma formation in abdominoplasty patients. Concomitant liposuction at the time of abdominoplasty increases the risk of seroma formation compared to patients having abdominoplasty alone.

Measuring angiogenic cytokines, circulating endothelial cells, and endothelial progenitor cells in peripheral blood and cord blood: VEGF and CXCL12 correlate with the number of circulating endothelial progenitor cells in peripheral blood.

Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are thought to play an important role in the vascularization of damaged tissues and cancers. These cells are also required for tissue-engineered blood vessels and to help skin substitutes revascularize more efficiently. A standard approach to the phenotyping and enumeration of CEC and EPC is key to the development of new therapies, and the identification of biomarkers within the blood that regulate their levels may be important for the treatment of cancer. We have devised an improved multiparameter flow cytometric assay for CEC and circulating EPC enumeration. This assay uses antibodies recognizing CD133 and CD34 to identify EPC and CEC, respectively, and incorporates specific markers CD144 and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) for both CEC and EPC cells. In peripheral blood (PB), mean CEC numbers were 55 +/- 95 mL(-1) and mean EPC numbers were 44 +/- 58 mL(-1) (n = 60). We also found a significant correlation of both plasma VEGF (r = 0.90, p < 0.001) and CXCL12 (r = 0.84, p < 0.001) with EPCs, but not CECs. The cytokines also correlated with each other (r = 0.85, p < 0.001). In umbilical cord blood (UCB) we found on average 13 times more CEC (719 +/- 338 mL(-1)) and 7 times more EPC (299 +/- 245 mL(-1)) than in PB. However, serum VEGF and CXCL12 levels in UCB did not correlate with either EPC or CEC numbers. These results suggest a major role for VEGF and CXCL12 in the control of marrow-derived EPCs in adult PB and provide normal data for comparison with patient populations.