We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Evaluation Studies
Journal Article
Outcomes and Safety of the Combined Abdominoplasty-Hysterectomy: A Preliminary Study.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2015 October
BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty (ABP) at the time of hysterectomy (HYS) has been described in the literature since 1986 and is being increasingly requested by patients. However, outcomes of the combined procedure have not been thoroughly explored.
METHODS: The authors reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database and identified each ABP, HYS, and combined ABP-HYS performed between 2005 and 2012. The incidence of complications in each of the three procedures was calculated, and a multiplicative-risk model was used to calculate the probability of a complication for a patient undergoing distinct HYS and ABP on different dates. One-sample binomial hypothesis tests were performed to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS: There were 1325 ABP cases, 12,173 HYS cases, and 143 ABP-HYS cases identified. Surgical complications occurred in 7.7 % of patients undergoing an ABP-HYS, while the calculated risk of a surgical complication was 12.5 % (p = 0.0407) for patients undergoing separate ABP and HYS procedures. The mean operative time was significantly lower for an ABP-HYS at 238 vs. 270 min for separate ABP and HYS procedures (p < 0.0001), and the mean time under anesthesia was significantly lower at 295 vs. 364 min (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: A combined ABP-HYS has a lower incidence of surgical complications than separate ABP and HYS procedures performed on different dates. These data should not encourage all patients to elect a combined ABP-HYS, if only undergoing a HYS, as the combined procedure is associated with increased risks when compared to either isolated individual procedure. However, in patients who are planning on undergoing both procedures on separate dates, a combined ABP-HYS is a safe option that will result in fewer surgical complications, less operative time, less time under anesthesia, and a trend towards fewer days in the hospital.
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 www.springer.com/00266 .
METHODS: The authors reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database and identified each ABP, HYS, and combined ABP-HYS performed between 2005 and 2012. The incidence of complications in each of the three procedures was calculated, and a multiplicative-risk model was used to calculate the probability of a complication for a patient undergoing distinct HYS and ABP on different dates. One-sample binomial hypothesis tests were performed to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS: There were 1325 ABP cases, 12,173 HYS cases, and 143 ABP-HYS cases identified. Surgical complications occurred in 7.7 % of patients undergoing an ABP-HYS, while the calculated risk of a surgical complication was 12.5 % (p = 0.0407) for patients undergoing separate ABP and HYS procedures. The mean operative time was significantly lower for an ABP-HYS at 238 vs. 270 min for separate ABP and HYS procedures (p < 0.0001), and the mean time under anesthesia was significantly lower at 295 vs. 364 min (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: A combined ABP-HYS has a lower incidence of surgical complications than separate ABP and HYS procedures performed on different dates. These data should not encourage all patients to elect a combined ABP-HYS, if only undergoing a HYS, as the combined procedure is associated with increased risks when compared to either isolated individual procedure. However, in patients who are planning on undergoing both procedures on separate dates, a combined ABP-HYS is a safe option that will result in fewer surgical complications, less operative time, less time under anesthesia, and a trend towards fewer days in the hospital.
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 www.springer.com/00266 .
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app