Scholarlink

Background <p>Liposuction is the most frequently performed plastic surgery procedure. Skin laxity remains a persistent challenge after the procedure. To address this issue, various devices aimed at promoting skin retraction have been explored, although comparative data are inconsistent.</p> Objectives <p>The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on skin retraction rates associated with different liposuction devices and critically evaluate the quality of the evidence. The secondary aim was to present a comparative summary of reported retraction percentages to highlight inconsistencies and to guide future research.</p> Methods <p>A systematic review was conducted across four major databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected by two independent authors, and included articles underwent qualitative synthesis and risk of bias assessment.</p> Results <p>Nineteen studies were included. The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 96.8%) and a serious risk of bias in approximately 50% of the studies. The calculated weighted average skin retraction percentages for each technology were as follows: Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction (RFAL), 31.38%; Laser-Assisted Liposuction (LAL), 29.87%; Ultrasound-Assisted Liposuction (UAL), 17.0%; and Suction-Assisted Liposuction (SAL), 12.35%.</p> Conclusion <p>Evidence on skin retraction from adjuvant liposuction technologies is limited by significant study heterogeneity and a high risk of bias, precluding firm conclusions regarding the superiority of any single device. This review underscores the urgent need for larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies to validate the clinical utility of these technologies.</p> Level of Evidence I <p>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 &#xa0;<a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Efficacy of Adjuvant Technologies for Skin Tightening in Liposuction: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月28日

查看全文
  • Leandro Dario Faustino,
  • Felipe Sathler Cruciol,
  • Thamy Harumi Cardoso Motoki,
  • Gabriel de Almeida Arruda Felix

摘要

Background

Liposuction is the most frequently performed plastic surgery procedure. Skin laxity remains a persistent challenge after the procedure. To address this issue, various devices aimed at promoting skin retraction have been explored, although comparative data are inconsistent.

Objectives

The primary aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on skin retraction rates associated with different liposuction devices and critically evaluate the quality of the evidence. The secondary aim was to present a comparative summary of reported retraction percentages to highlight inconsistencies and to guide future research.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted across four major databases following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were selected by two independent authors, and included articles underwent qualitative synthesis and risk of bias assessment.

Results

Nineteen studies were included. The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 96.8%) and a serious risk of bias in approximately 50% of the studies. The calculated weighted average skin retraction percentages for each technology were as follows: Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction (RFAL), 31.38%; Laser-Assisted Liposuction (LAL), 29.87%; Ultrasound-Assisted Liposuction (UAL), 17.0%; and Suction-Assisted Liposuction (SAL), 12.35%.

Conclusion

Evidence on skin retraction from adjuvant liposuction technologies is limited by significant study heterogeneity and a high risk of bias, precluding firm conclusions regarding the superiority of any single device. This review underscores the urgent need for larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized methodologies to validate the clinical utility of these technologies.

Level of Evidence I

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.