Long-Term Results of a Versatile Technique for Umbilicoplasty in Abdominoplasty
- 755 Downloads
Umbilical repositioning is a main step in performing abdominoplasty. The surgical aims are minimal visible scars and a natural-appearing result. Reported techniques do not completely satisfy the aesthetic targets for all types of patients. A previous study reported a versatile technique for umbilicoplasty based on an elliptical vertical incision of the umbilical skin and a double opposing “Y” incision on the abdominal flap to create a new umbilicus. This report describes the long-term results with this technique.
A total of 111 abdominoplasties were performed. Patient satisfaction and postoperative results were evaluated over a 5-year follow-up period. A modified 5-ml syringe was used to assess the depth and volume of the umbilical stalk. Depth value variations were statistically compared using the Wilcoxon test.
For all the patients, a three-dimensional umbilicus with an adequate depression was created. In four cases, deepithelialization of the umbilical skin occurred. After 1 postoperative year, no significant changes in umbilical shape, dimension, depth, or appearance were observed. After 5 years, no significant changes in shape or appearance were observed. The cicatricial umbilical stenosis occurrence was 4.5%. A small significant decrease in umbilical depth was noted. Overall, the results remained satisfying at this writing.
The reported technique is easy to learn, simple to perform, and stable over time. It gives a natural depth appearance, ensures optimal position, pulls scars deeply, and allows achievement of different shapes according to the patient’s habitus.
KeywordsAbdominoplasty Umbilicoplasty Umbilicus reconstruction
Conflict of interest
- 28.Psillakis JM, Appiani E, de la Plaza R (1991) Color atlas of aesthetic surgery of the abdomen. Thieme Medical Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 37.Teimourian B, Marefat S (1994) Body contouring with suction-assisted lipectomy. In: Cohen M (ed) Mastery of plastic and reconstructive surgery, vol 3. Little Brown, Boston, pp 2186–2200Google Scholar