Related Experiment Videos
Ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty
R Cooter1, W Babidge, K Mutimer
1Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical (ASERNIP-S), Royal Australian College of Surgeons, North Adelaide.
ANZ Journal of Surgery
|May 26, 2001
Summary
The evidence for ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty (UAL) safety and effectiveness is insufficient. Further research, including animal models, is needed to investigate potential DNA damage and establish UAL safety protocols.
Area of Science:
- Plastic Surgery
- Aesthetic Medicine
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty (UAL) raises concerns regarding complications and long-term effects due to ultrasonic energy interactions with tissues.
- Existing literature lacks comprehensive data on the safety and efficacy of UAL.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review the available evidence on complications and long-term effects of ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty.
- To critically appraise the safety and efficacy of UAL compared to traditional methods.
Main Methods:
- Systematic literature search of Medline, Current Contents, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2000.
- Inclusion of randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, and case reports.
- Critical appraisal of 36 selected papers for methodology, outcomes, bias, confounding, and chance.
Main Results:
- Limited high-level evidence comparing UAL with suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL).
- No conclusive evidence of UAL safety benefit; low-quality evidence suggests reduced surgeon fatigue but increased operating times and learning curve.
- Inadequate evidence regarding the clinical realization of theoretical DNA damage potential from ultrasound.
Conclusions:
- The current evidence base is insufficient to determine the safety and efficacy of UAL.
- Further investigation into the potential for DNA damage using in vivo animal models is recommended.
- Recommendations for the safe application of UAL are discussed.