Hemostatic Net Versus Surgical Drain After Deep Plane Facelift Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Maram Ismail, Samir Ghoraba
{"title":"Hemostatic Net Versus Surgical Drain After Deep Plane Facelift Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Maram Ismail, Samir Ghoraba","doi":"10.1007/s00266-025-04745-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have discussed the safety and effectiveness of the hemostatic net after facelift surgery. However, fearful of having to deal with a hematoma or seroma following the surgery, many surgeons opt to leave surgical drains in place for a short time after the procedure. There is minimal data from studies comparing the hemostatic net to surgical drains.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficacy of surgical drains and the hemostatic net after deep plane facelift surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study prospectively compares the effectiveness of both methods in a randomized controlled approach, including a consecutive series of 160 patients who underwent deep plane facelifts throughout a 6-month period. We compared the incidence of hematoma, seroma, edema, and other complications during the postoperative period using surgical drains and the hemostatic net.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty female patients were included in each group. Analysis of the postoperative data showed no significant difference in hematoma and seroma rates between the drain and net groups. Both methods were associated with comparable degrees of postoperative edema (p =  0.737). The occurrence of other complications such as ecchymosis, congestion, and necrosis did not show a significant correlation to either method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The hemostatic net and surgical drain have comparable outcomes in terms of controlling hematoma and seroma formation after deep plane facelift surgery and show similar degrees of postoperative swelling.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence i: </strong>A randomized controlled trial. 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 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04745-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Several studies have discussed the safety and effectiveness of the hemostatic net after facelift surgery. However, fearful of having to deal with a hematoma or seroma following the surgery, many surgeons opt to leave surgical drains in place for a short time after the procedure. There is minimal data from studies comparing the hemostatic net to surgical drains.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of surgical drains and the hemostatic net after deep plane facelift surgery.

Materials and methods: This study prospectively compares the effectiveness of both methods in a randomized controlled approach, including a consecutive series of 160 patients who underwent deep plane facelifts throughout a 6-month period. We compared the incidence of hematoma, seroma, edema, and other complications during the postoperative period using surgical drains and the hemostatic net.

Results: Eighty female patients were included in each group. Analysis of the postoperative data showed no significant difference in hematoma and seroma rates between the drain and net groups. Both methods were associated with comparable degrees of postoperative edema (p =  0.737). The occurrence of other complications such as ecchymosis, congestion, and necrosis did not show a significant correlation to either method.

Conclusions: The hemostatic net and surgical drain have comparable outcomes in terms of controlling hematoma and seroma formation after deep plane facelift surgery and show similar degrees of postoperative swelling.

Level of evidence i: A randomized controlled trial. 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 .

背景:多项研究讨论了拉皮手术后止血网的安全性和有效性。然而,由于害怕术后出现血肿或血清肿,许多外科医生选择在术后短时间内保留手术引流管。将止血网与手术引流管进行比较的研究数据极少:比较手术引流管和止血网在深平面拉皮手术后的效果:本研究采用随机对照的方法,对两种方法的有效性进行了前瞻性比较,包括在 6 个月内连续接受深层平面拉皮手术的 160 名患者。我们比较了手术引流管和止血网在术后血肿、血清肿、水肿和其他并发症的发生率:结果:每组均有 80 名女性患者。术后数据分析显示,引流管组和止血网组的血肿和血清肿发生率无明显差异。两种方法的术后水肿程度相当(P = 0.737)。瘀斑、充血和坏死等其他并发症的发生与这两种方法没有明显的相关性:结论:止血网和手术引流管在控制深平面拉皮手术后血肿和血清肿形成方面效果相当,术后肿胀程度相似:随机对照试验。本期刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据等级。有关这些循证医学等级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者须知 www.springer.com/00266 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
25.00%
发文量
479
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP). Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信