<< Back to the abstract archive
A Retrospective Review of Patient Charts where Helium Plasma RF was used following UAL Lipoabdominoplasty versus UAL Lipoabdominoplasty without Helium Plasma RF
Paul Vanek, MD
Private Practice
2024-01-15
Presenter: Paul Vanek, MD
Affidavit:
Paul Vanek, MD
Director Name: Paul Vanek, MD
Author Category: Fellow Plastic Surgery
Presentation Category: Clinical
Abstract Category: Aesthetics
Design: This was a retrospective collection of procedure and safety data from 2017 - 2023 in a contiguous series of patients where Helium Plasma RF was used as an adjunct procedure to UAL Lipoabdominoplasty compared to UAL Lipoabdominoplasty patients without the use of Helium Plasma RF.
Significant events are identified as hospitalization, a medical procedure, home health, or ER visit.
Findings: 77 subjects; 40 in the Lipoabdominoplasty with UAL + Helium Plasma RF (UAL + HPRF) group and 37 in the Lipoabdominoplasty with UAL alone (UAL) group.
33% (13/40) of subjects in UAL + HPRF experienced 14 adverse events of which 78.6% (11/14) required a medical procedure as intervention for seroma (n=6), tissue necrosis (n=1), or wound dehiscence (n=4) and 21.4% (3/14) required hospitalization for abdominal wall cellulitis or wound dehiscence or an emergency room (ER) visit for tissue necrosis.
30% (11/37) of subjects in UAL experienced 14 adverse events of which 78.6% (11/14) required a medical procedure as intervention for seroma (n=5), tissue necrosis (n=2), scar requiring revision (n=2), wound dehiscence (n=1), or fat cyst (n=1) and 21.4% (3/14) required hospitalization or home health for abdominal wall cellulitis.
All adverse events experienced in both groups resolved.
Summary: 7.5% (3/40) of subjects in UAL + HPRF vs. 8.1% (3/37) of subjects in UAL experienced significant events that required hospitalization, home health, or an ER visit. These data demonstrate that adding Helium Plasma RF to the Lipoabdominoplasty procedure with UAL does not impact the overall significant risk of the procedure.
