Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

1,000 Consecutive Cases of Laser-Assisted Liposuction and Suction-Assisted Lipectomy Managed With Local Anesthesia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Advances in suction-assisted lipectomy (SAL) include improved instrumentation, better understanding of fluid dynamics, and an improved concept of appropriate indications. The tumescent technique uses subcutaneous injection of isotonic fluid containing vasoconstrictive and analgesic agents and is proved to be safe, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Laser-assisted liposuction (LAL) using local infiltration of an anesthetic and no general anesthesia or sedation has been developed, with claims of fat destruction and skin tightening. This study aimed to review 1,000 consecutive cases of LAL and SAL performed with the patient under local anesthesia and to determine whether this represents a safe technique with few complications.

Methods

During a period of 22 months, 581 consecutive patients (486 females and 95 males) underwent 1,000 LAL/SAL operations, 545 of whom had multiple procedures performed. None of the patients had a body mass index (BMI) higher than 30 kg/m2. The patients ranged in age from 18 to 62 years. The fat aspirate ranged from 50 to 1,400 ml. Patients were given an oral sedative, an antibiotic, and an analgesic. Ringer’s lactate solution containing lidocaine and epinephrine was injected into the subcutaneous space. The 1,064-nm and/or 1,320-nm neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) laser was used for laser lipolysis followed by SAL using standard and/or power-assisted liposuction (PAL) cannulas. The treated areas included the neck, triceps, male breast, midback, flanks, axilla, abdomen, mons pubis, thighs, presacrum, and knees. No patient was administered intravenous sedation or general anesthesia.

Results

The average number of areas treated was 1.8, and no major complications or mortalities were observed. There were three burns, two infections, one hematoma, and one seroma. A total of 73 secondary procedures were performed (7.3%). No tertiary procedures were required.

Conclusion

For appropriately selected patients, comparable results can be obtained with an excellent safety profile and short recovery period using LAL and SAL with the patient under local anesthesia. The awake patient is able to participate in body positioning and to provide physiologic monitoring. No major complications occurred in this series. The burn and hematoma complications occurred in the first 25 cases and may have been related to a learning curve. One case of cellulitis occurred in the triceps region, and a second infection occurred in the abdomen. Both responded to antibiotics. Altogether, 73 touch-up procedures (7.3%) were performed. The amounts of fat removal were comparable with the volumes obtained using traditional liposuction. In conclusion, this series demonstrated that LAL/SAL using local anesthesia is a safe procedure for selected patients, with acceptably low morbidity and revision rates.

Level of Evidence IV

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 at www.springer.com/00266

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barillo DJ et al (1998) Fatal and near-fatal complications of liposuction. South Med J 91:487–492

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grazer FM, de Jong RH (2000) Fatal outcomes from liposuction: census survey of cosmetic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 105:436–446 discussion 447–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Teimourian B, Rogers WB III (1989) A national survey of complications associated with suction lipectomy: a comparative study. Plast Reconstr Surg 84:628–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Klein JA (1993) Tumescent technique for local anesthesia improves safety in large-volume liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:1085–1098 discussion 1099–1100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanke CW, Bernstein G, Bullock S (1995) Safety of tumescent liposuction in 15,336 patients: national survey results. Dermatol Surg 21:459–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Habbema L (2009) Safety of liposuction using exclusively tumescent local anesthesia in 3,240 consecutive cases. Dermatol Surg 35:1728–1740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Matarraso A, Hutchinson O (2001) Liposuction. JAMA 285:266–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Apfelberg DB (1996) Results of multicenter study of laser-assisted liposuction. Clin Plast Surg 23:713–719

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. DiBernardo B, Reyes J, Chen B (2009) Evaluation of tissue thermal effects from 1,064/1,320-nm laser-assisted lipolysis and its clinical implications. J Cosmet Laser Ther 11:62–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mann MW, Palm MD, Sengelmann RD (2008) New advances in liposuction technology. Semin Cutan Med Surg 27:72–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Prado A, Andrades P, Danilla S, Leniz P, Castillo P, Gaete F (2006) A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing laser-assisted lipoplasty with suction-assisted lipoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 118:1032–1045

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rohrich RJ, Beran SJ, Kenkel J, Adams WP, DiSpaltro F (1998) Extendingthe role of liposuction in body contouring with ultrasound-assisted liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:1090–1102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dillerud E (1991) Suction lipoplasty: a report on complications, undesired results, and patient satisfaction based on 3,511 procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 88:239–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dang Y, Ren Q, Liu H, Zhang J (2005) Comparison of histologic, biochemical, and mechanical properties of murine skin treated with the 1,064-nm and 1,320-nm Nd:YAG lasers. Exp Dermol 14:876–882

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Katz BE, Bruck MC, Coleman WP III (2001) The benefits of powered liposuction versus traditional liposuction: a paired comparison analysis. Dermatol Surg 27:863–867

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Scuderi N, Paolini G, Grippaudo Fr, Tenna S (2000) Comparative evaluation of traditional, ultrasonic, an pneumatic-assisted lipoplasty: analysis of local and systemic effects, efficacy, and costs of these methods. Aesthetic Plast Surg 24:395–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Boeni R (2011) Safety of tumescent liposuction under local anesthesia in a series of 4,380 patients. Dermatology 222:278–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Christopher T. Chia and Spero J. Theodorou are consultants for Cynosure Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher T. Chia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chia, C.T., Theodorou, S.J. 1,000 Consecutive Cases of Laser-Assisted Liposuction and Suction-Assisted Lipectomy Managed With Local Anesthesia. Aesth Plast Surg 36, 795–802 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9885-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-012-9885-2

Keywords

Navigation