Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Postbariatric Abdominoplasty: A Comparative Study on Scarpa Fascia Preservation Versus Classical Technique

  • Original Articles
  • Body Contouring
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Abdominoplasties performed with Scarpa Fascia preservation, improve recovery and reduce complications, particularly seroma. Bariatric patients who experience massive weight loss frequently seek body contouring procedures and represent a high-risk group. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of abdominoplasty with Scarpa Fascia preservation versus the classical technique in a bariatric population.

Methods

A retrospective observational cohort study was performed between March 2015 and March 2021 in 65 postbariatric patients who underwent a classic full abdominoplasty (group A, N = 25) or a similar procedure except for the preservation of Scarpa fascia (group B, N = 40). Total and daily drain output, time until drain removal, long drainers (≥ 6 days), length of hospital stay, emergency department visit, readmission to the hospital, reoperation, local and systemic complications were the outcomes evaluated.

Results

Group B had a 3-day reduction in time until drain removal (p < 0.001), a 62.6% reduction of total drain output (p < 0.001) and a 3-day reduction in the length of the hospital stay (p < 0.001). Long drainers (≥ 6 days) were highly reduced (from 56.0% in group A to 7.5% in group B) (p < 0.001). There was a lower incidence of liquid collections in group B, with a 66.7% reduction in seroma incidence.

Conclusions

Abdominoplasty with Scarpa Fascia preservation improves recovery by reducing drain output, allowing earlier drain removal and reducing long periods with suction drains. It also reduces hospital stay and seroma incidence. This technique modifies the high-risk postbariatric patient in such a major way that he behaves like a nonbariatric.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collaborators GBDO, Afshin A, Forouzanfar MH et al (2017) Health effects of overweight and obesity in 195 countries over 25 years. N Engl J Med 377:13–27

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angrisani L, Santonicola A, Iovino P et al (2017) Bariatric surgery and endoluminal procedures: IFSO worldwide survey 2014. Obes Surg 27:2279–2289

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Dumon KR, Murayama KM (2011) Bariatric surgery outcomes. Surg Clin North Am 91:1313–1338

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kushner RF, Noble CA (2006) Long-term outcome of bariatric surgery: an interim analysis. Mayo Clin Proc 81:S46–S51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Song AY, Jean RD, Hurwitz DJ et al (2005) A classification of contour deformities after bariatric weight loss: the Pittsburgh Rating Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:1535–1544

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bossert RP, Rubin JP (2012) Evaluation of the weight loss patient presenting for plastic surgery consultation. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:1361–1369

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Light D, Arvanitis GM, Abramson D, Glasberg SB (2010) Effect of weight loss after bariatric surgery on skin and the extracellular matrix. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:343–351

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Papadopulos NA, Staffler V, Mirceva V et al (2012) Does abdominoplasty have a positive influence on quality of life, self-esteem, and emotional stability? Plast Reconstr Surg 129:957e-e962

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2020) Plastic Surgery Statistics Full Report. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2022

  10. Matarasso A, Swift RW, Rankin M (2006) Abdominoplasty and abdominal contour surgery: a national plastic surgery survey. Plast Reconstr Surg 117:1797–1808

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Winocour J, Gupta V, Ramirez JR et al (2015) Abdominoplasty: risk factors, complication rates, and safety of combined procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 136:597e–606e

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rogliani M, Silvi E, Labardi L, Maggiulli F, Cervelli V (2006) Obese and nonobese patients: complications of abdominoplasty. Ann Plast Surg 57:336–338

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marouf A, Mortada H (2021) Complications of body contouring surgery in postbariatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg 45:2810–2820

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hasanbegovic E, Sorensen JA (2014) Complications following body contouring surgery after massive weight loss: a meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:295–301

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Coon D, Gusenoff JA, Kannan N et al (2009) Body mass and surgical complications in the postbariatric reconstructive patient: analysis of 511 cases. Ann Surg 249:397–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Costa-Ferreira A, Rebelo M, Vasconez LO, Amarante J (2010) Scarpa fascia preservation during abdominoplasty: a prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:1232–1239

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Costa-Ferreira A, Marco R, Vasconez L, Amarante J (2016) Abdominoplasty with Scarpa fascia preservation. Ann Plast Surg 76(Suppl 4):S264–S274

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Costa-Ferreira A, Rebelo M, Silva A, Vasconez LO, Amarante J (2013) Scarpa fascia preservation during abdominoplasty: randomized clinical study of efficacy and safety. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:644–651

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Novais CS, Carvalho J, Valenca-Filipe R et al (2020) Abdominoplasty with scarpa fascia preservation: randomized controlled trial with assessment of scar quality and cutaneous sensibility. Plast Reconstr Surg 146:156e-e164

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bozola AR (2010) Abdominoplasty: same classification and a new treatment concept 20 years later. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:181–192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matarasso A (1991) Abdominoplasty—a system of classification and treatment for combined abdominoplasty and suction—assisted lipectomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg 15:111–121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Costa-Ferreira A, Rebelo M, Vásconez L, Amarante J (2016) Scarpa fascia preservation during abdominoplasty. In: Di Giuseppe A, Shiffman MA (eds) Aesthetic plastic surgery of the abdomen. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 59–73

    Google Scholar 

  23. Torres-Silva C, Pisco A, Valenca-Filipe R et al (2021) Dissection technique for abdominoplasty with Scarpa fascia preservation: comparative study on avulsion technique versus diathermocoagulation. Aesthet Surg J 41:NP804–NP819

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pitanguy I (1975) Abdominal lipectomy. Clin Plast Surg 2:401–410

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baroudi R, Keppke EM, Netto FT (1974) Abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 54:161–168

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sjoberg DD, Whiting K, Curry M, Lavery JA, Larmarange J (2021) Reproducible summary tables with the gtsummary package. R J 13(1):570–580. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2021-053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York

  28. Nahai FR (2010) Anatomic considerations in abdominoplasty. Clin Plast Surg 37:407–414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Costa-Ferreira A, Rodrigues-Pereira P, Rebelo M, Vasconez LO, Amarante J (2014) Morphometric study (macroscopic and microscopic) of the lower abdominal wall. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:1313–1322

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Markman B, Barton FE Jr (1987) Anatomy of the subcutaneous tissue of the trunk and lower extremity. Plast Reconstr Surg 80:248–254

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Felmerer G, Muehlberger T, Berens von Rautenfeld D, Vogt PM (2002) The lymphatic system of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap: an anatomical study. Br J Plast Surg 55:335–339

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Friedman T, Coon D, Kanbour-Shakir A, Jt M, Rubin JP (2015) Defining the lymphatic system of the anterior abdominal wall: an anatomical study. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:1027–1032

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Le Louarn C (1996) Partial subfascial abdominoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 20:123–127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harley OJ, Pickford MA (2013) CT analysis of fat distribution superficial and deep to the Scarpa’s fascial layer in the mid and lower abdomen. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66:525–530

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pirri C, Petrelli L, Fede C et al (2023) Blood supply to the superficial fascia of the abdomen: an anatomical study. Clin Anat 36:570–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Valenca-Filipe R, Vardasca R, Magalhaes C et al (2023) Classic versus Scarpa-sparing abdominoplasty: an infrared thermographic comparative analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 82:264–274

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nakajima H, Imanishi N, Minabe T, Kishi K, Aiso S (2004) Anatomical study of subcutaneous adipofascial tissue: a concept of the protective adipofascial system (PAFS) and lubricant adipofascial system (LAFS). Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 38:261–266

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lancerotto L, Stecco C, Macchi V et al (2011) Layers of the abdominal wall: anatomical investigation of subcutaneous tissue and superficial fascia. Surg Radiol Anat 33:835–842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Pisco A, Rebelo M, Peres H, Costa-Ferreira A (2020) Abdominoplasty with scarpa fascia preservation: prospective comparative study of suction drain number. Ann Plast Surg 84:356–360

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fang RC, Lin SJ, Mustoe TA (2010) Abdominoplasty flap elevation in a more superficial plane: decreasing the need for drains. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:677–682

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Correia-Goncalves I, Valenca-Filipe R, Carvalho J et al (2017) Abdominoplasty with Scarpa fascia preservation—comparative study in a bariatric population. Surg Obes Relat Dis 13:423–428

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (2021). Sixth IFSO global registry report. www.ifso.com/pdf/ifso-6th-registry-report-2021.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2022

  43. Marsh DJ, Fox A, Grobbelaar AO, Chana JS (2015) Abdominoplasty and seroma: a prospective randomised study comparing scalpel and handheld electrocautery dissection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 68:192–196

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Valenca-Filipe R, Martins A, Silva A et al (2015) Dissection technique for abdominoplasty: a prospective study on scalpel versus diathermocoagulation (coagulation mode). Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 3:e299

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Rousseau P, Vincent H, Potier B, Arnaud D, Darsonval V (2011) Diathermocoagulation in cutting mode and large flap dissection. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:2093–2098

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Inês Araújo Monteiro, António de Sousa Barros & António Costa-Ferreira

  2. Cardiovascular Research and Development Center (UnIC@RISE), Porto, Portugal

    António de Sousa Barros & António Costa-Ferreira

  3. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, São João University Hospital, Porto, Portugal

    António Costa-Ferreira

Authors
  1. Inês Araújo Monteiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. António de Sousa Barros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. António Costa-Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inês Araújo Monteiro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no commercial associations that might be a conflict of interest in this article.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Monteiro, I.A., de Sousa Barros, A. & Costa-Ferreira, A. Postbariatric Abdominoplasty: A Comparative Study on Scarpa Fascia Preservation Versus Classical Technique. Aesth Plast Surg 47, 2511–2524 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03455-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-023-03455-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation