Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess post-operative differences in a group of patients using a contra-lateral model. Patients were treated with suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL) and VASER-assisted lipoplasty (VAL) methods of body contouring.
Methods and Materials: Twenty female patients between the ages of 20 and 48 received contra-lateral treatment with SAL and VAL in one or more anatomical body regions for a total of 33 regions (n=33). Prior to surgery, patients were marked with UV sensitive microdot tattoos (visible under black light) and had pre-operative hemoglobin levels drawn. On the day of surgery, patients were randomly allocated to undergo SAL on the left or right side of the body, and VAL on the contra-lateral side. Fluid samples were analyzed from the aspirate of each technology type and blood loss was calculated as a percentage of fat removed.
Case Follow-up: Patients were unaware of the technology type used on each side of the body. Patients returned for five (5) follow-up visits over 6 months. At each visit the surgeon and the patient each completed their own individual post-operative assessment, including measures of pain, swelling, treated area appearance, and patient and physician preference. Additionally, measurements were taken of the UV sensitive microdots to assess skin retraction and photos were taken of the treated areas. The three distances measured using the UV dots were converted into a planar area assuming a flat skin surface using Heron’s rule.
Results:
Skin Retraction: The results show that on average the VAL treated side demonstrated 40% better skin retraction than SAL. The smallest improvement (0.3%) was on the flanks (3 sites); the highest improvement was on the upper back (2% reduction for VAL vs. 1% expansion for SAL, 1 site); VAL demonstrated 30% more skin retraction on the arms (2 sites); the inner and outer thighs produced a 37% and 40% improvement respectively (27 sites total).
Blood Loss: The blood loss analysis was aggregated by patient, irrespective of area treated. Overall, the VAL treated side had 39% less blood loss than the side treated by SAL (20 patients). The blood volume as a percentage of fat removed was 13% for SAL, and 9.5% for VAL.
For all subjective measures (pain, swelling, appearance, and patient and physician preference) there was no statistical difference between the two methods used. Overall satisfaction with the procedure was generally excellent, from both the surgeon’s and the patient’s point of view.
Conclusions: Overall, the VASER-assisted lipoplasty method demonstrated significantly improved results with 40% better skin retraction than the traditional SAL method and a 39% reduction in blood loss. The other metrics used were neutral in their comparison. In conclusion, VASER-assisted lipoplasty was shown to be the preferred method of body contouring by providing a safer procedure with improved results.