Evidence-Based Practice in Liposuction.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study is to examine the existing peer reviewed literature comparing modern adjunctive techniques in liposuction including laser-assisted liposuction (LAL) and ultrasound-assisted liposuction (UAL) to standard suction-assisted liposuction (SAL). We intend to interpret these findings into a literature-based clinical application to influence practice patterns. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using a keyword search in PubMed. Keyword search items included liposuction, lipoplasty, suction assisted liposuction, ultrasound assisted liposuction, laser assisted liposuction, tumescent, liposuction comparison, liposuction review, and combinations therein. Exclusion criteria included articles with a primary focus on histologic effects of energy devices, primary animal models, primary opinion papers with no reference to available data, and industry-sponsored publications. Inclusion criteria included articles with direct comparison of liposuction modalities, randomized or blinded studies, and studies with objective outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles that met the inclusion criteria comparing SAL to UAL or LAL out of 9972 articles identified were obtained. The selected literature was assigned into 3 categories: evidence demonstrating an advantage of 1 modality (SAL, UAL, or LAL) over another, evidence that showed no benefit of 1 modality over another, and evidence that demonstrated risks of complications of 1 modality over another. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of UAL and LAL over SAL include the following: (1) UAL over SAL in the treatment of gynecomastia, (2) LAL and UAL over SAL with decreased hemoglobin/hematocrit in high-volume lipoaspirates, and (3) LAL over SAL with skin tightening in select areas specifically the submental area. Otherwise, the literature demonstrates equivocal results among the described techniques with no clear benefit to set one apart from the other. There appears to be no demonstrable added benefit to the addition of either UAL or LAL that would urge a change in practice patterns outside the exceptions listed.

The Utility of Preoperative HbA1c as a Standardized Protocol in Elective Carpal Tunnel Release: A Retrospective Review of Clinical Outcomes.

Background: In an effort to reduce surgical complications, some institutions have implemented universal hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) screening for all preoperative patients. However, the value of HbA1c screening for predicting clinically meaningful complications after elective carpal tunnel release (CTR) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinically meaningful predicative value of HbA1c screening on postoperative complications following elective CTR. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 790 patients who underwent CTR was performed. All patients had an HbA1c screening performed, regardless of whether they underwent the diagnosis for diabetes or not. Primary outcomes were overall complication rate, rates of major complications (readmission or reoperation), and rates of minor complications (surgical site infection and wound dehiscence). Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on HbA1c: HbA1c <7, HbA1c 7-8, and HbA1c >8. Results: The overall complication rate for all groups was 4.8%. Rates of major complications were 0.4% for readmission and 0.1% for reoperation. For minor complications, the odds ratio (OR) for the HbA1c 7-8 group was 0.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-1.77), and for the HbA1c >8 group, the OR was 1.6 (95% CI, 0.66-3.60). All minor complications resolved with outpatient treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any comparisons. Conclusions: Elective CTR has a low complication rate. Routine preoperative screening of HbA1c is of little value in predicting clinically meaningful complications.