Advertisement

Reconstructive pelvic surgery and plastic surgery: safety and efficacy of combined surgery

  • Jocelyn B. Craig
    Correspondence
    Reprints: Jocelyn B. Craig, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, UCI Medical Center, 101 The City Drive Building 56, Orange, CA 92868
    Affiliations
    Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Karen L. Noblett
    Affiliations
    Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Caroline A. Conner
    Affiliations
    Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Michael Budd
    Affiliations
    Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Felicia L. Lane
    Affiliations
    Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 10, 2008DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.053

      Objective

      The purpose of this study was to address the safety of combining aesthetic and pelvic floor reconstructive procedures.

      Study Design

      Fifty-four subjects were included in a case-control study; 18 patients undergoing combined pelvic and plastic reconstructive surgery, age and procedure matched to 18 pelvic surgery and 18 plastic surgery only controls. Chi-square, t test, and Kruskal-Wallis analysis were used to compare the estimated blood loss (EBL), body mass index (BMI), hospital days, operative times, and complications between the groups.

      Results

      No differences were seen with regards to age, BMI, or EBL. There was, however, a significant increase in minor complications and hospital stay after combined procedures relative to the pelvic surgery control group but not the aesthetic control group. Operative times were only greater during combined procedures relative to isolated pelvic floor procedures.

      Conclusion

      Combining pelvic and aesthetic procedures may increase complications, operative times, and length of hospital stay when compared to pelvic reconstructive surgery alone.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kaplan H.Y.
        • Bar-Meir E.
        Safety of combining abdominoplasty and total abdominal hysterectomy.
        Ann Plast Surg. 2005; 54: 390-392
        • Hester T.R.
        • Baird W.
        • Bostwick J.
        • Nahai F.
        • Cukic J.
        Abdominoplasty combined with other major surgical procedures: safe or sorry?.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989; 83: 997-1004
        • Voss S.C.
        • Sharp H.C.
        • Scott J.R.
        Abdominoplasty combined with gynecologic surgical procedures.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1986; 67: 181-185
        • Shull B.L.
        • Verheyden C.N.
        Combined plastic and gynecological surgical procedures.
        Ann Plast Surg. 1988; 20: 552-557
        • Gemperli R.
        • Neves R.I.
        • Tuma P.
        • Bonamichi G.T.
        • Ferreira M.C.
        • Manders E.K.
        Abdominoplasty combined with other intraabdominal procedures.
        Ann Plast Surg. 1992; 29: 18-22
        • Perry A.W.
        Abdominoplasty combined with total abdominal hysterectomy.
        Ann Plast Surg. 1986; 16: 121-124
        • Cosin J.A.
        • Powell J.L.
        • Donovan J.T.
        • Stueber K.
        The safety and efficacy of extensive abdominal panniculectomy at the time of pelvic surgery.
        Gynecol Oncol. 1994; 55: 36-40
        • Hopkins M.P.
        • Shriner A.M.
        • Parker M.G.
        • Scott L.
        Panniculectomy at the time of gynecologic surgery in morbidly obese patients.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 182: 1502-1505
        • Savage R.C.
        Abdominoplasty combined with other surgical procedures.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982; 70: 437
        • Freedom J.
        Abdominoplasty with celiotomy: evaluation and technique.
        Int Surg. 1983; 68: 75
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.
        Classification of surgical complications.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-209
        • Mesens T.
        • Aich A.
        • Bhal P.S.
        Late erosion rates of mid-urethral tapes for stress urinary incontinence.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2007; 18: 1113-1114
        • Addel-Fattah M.
        • Sivanesan K.
        How common are tape erosions: a comparison of two versions.
        BJU International. 2006; 98: 594-598
        • Grazer F.M.
        • Goldwyn R.M.
        Abdominoplasty assessed by survey, with emphasis on complications.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977; 59: 513