Comparison of Power Water – Assisted and Traditional Liposuction: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Postoperative Pain

Abstract

Background

Postoperative pain has always been underestimated by the majority of plastic surgeons. A prospective randomized trial compared power water-assisted liposuction with the traditional tumescent technique.

Methods

All patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 to 30 and excessive localized pathologic fat were recruited. Exclusion criteria specified a BMI greater than 30 or redundant anelastic skin. Patients were randomly assigned to power water-assisted or traditional liposuction.

Results

From September 2005 to December 2005, 60 patients were recruited and analyzed. For the study, 28 patients were randomized to traditional liposuction and 32 to power water-assisted liposuction. A significant difference in postoperative pain was observed (p < 0.05). After 4 days, 87% of the patients who underwent power water-assisted liposuction were completely pain free, as compared with 3.6% of those treated with traditional liposuction. Furthermore, ecchymosis was significantly less for the patients who underwent power-assisted liposuction (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The study findings demonstrate that power water-assisted liposuction is an almost painless procedure that produces less tissue trauma than traditional liposuction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

References

  1. 1.

    Araco A, Gravante G, Araco F, et al: Postoperative pain after lipoplasty: An underestimated entity or a misdiagnosed complication? Plast Reconstr Surg 118:567–569, 2006

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dell RB, Holleran S, Ramakrishnan R: Sample size determination. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43:207–213, 2002

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gasparotti M: Superficial liposuction: A new application of the technique for aged and flaccid skin. Aesth Plast Surg 16:141–153, 1992

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S: The measurement of clinical pain intensity: A comparison of six methods. Pain 27:117–126, 1986

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Mayor S: NICE guidance clarifies when to do preoperative tests in elective surgery. BMJ 326:1418, 2003

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG: The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194, 2001

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Most D, Kozlow J, Heller J, et al: Thromboembolism in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 115:20e–30e, 2005

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schrudde J: Lipexeresis for the correction of local adiposity (Abstract). Presented at the First Congress of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 5–9 February, 1972

  9. 9.

    Troilius C: Ten years liposuction. Aesth Plast Surg 20:201–206, 1996

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Zocchi M: Ultrasonic-assisted lipoplasty: Technical refinements and clinical evaluation. Clin Plast Surg 23:575, 1996

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianpiero Gravante M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Araco, A., Gravante, G., Araco, F. et al. Comparison of Power Water – Assisted and Traditional Liposuction: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Postoperative Pain. Aesth Plast Surg 31, 259–265 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0186-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cosmetic surgery
  • High-pressure liposuction
  • Liposuction complications
  • Pain
  • Postoperative pain
  • Power water-assisted liposuction