Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10759816

Powered liposuction.

W P Coleman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although Arpad and Giorgio Fischer initially employed blades within cannulas in their early research while inventing liposuction, hollow cannulas have become the standard instrument for this procedure for the last quarter century. Ultrasonic liposuction was developed in the 1990s to facilitate the passage of cannulas through subcutaneous tissue while liquefying fat. However, these instruments had a number of drawbacks including seromas and tissue burns. Powered cannulas were introduced in 1995 by Gross for "liposhaving." This technique was used on the neck with open surgery under direct observation. OBJECTIVE: Based on these principles, a new powered liposuction device has been designed for body liposuction. METHOD: An oscillating blade within a cannula facilitates removal of fat, especially in fibrous areas such as male flanks and breasts. This instrument has proven to be safe in numerous body areas. Powered reciprocating cannulas also have been recently introduced. These simulate the "to and fro" motion of manual liposuction and appear to be safe. CONCLUSION: Powered liposuction may provide the advantages of ultrasonic liposuction with fewer complications.

Explore related subjects

CatheterizationHumansLipectomyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W P Coleman. 2000. Powered liposuction.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4725.2000.99240.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

Transcatheter closure of persistent arterial ducts with different types of coils.

BACKGROUND: Different types of coils have been designed for transcatheter closure of persistent arterial ducts. We compared the efficacy and safety of three types of coils: Gianturco coils (Cook), Cook detachable coils (Cook), and Duct Occlud devices (pfm). METHODS: Sixty-three patients underwent coil occlusion of arterial ducts between April 1995 and July 2000. The mean age and weight were 4.8+/-3.4 years and 16.5+/-7.6 kg, respectively. The results and complications of ductal occlusion among the three types of coils were compared. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess reduction in the prevalence of residual shunt with time, and multiple regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of complete occlusion. RESULTS: Coil occlusion of persistent arterial ducts that measured 2. 2 +/- 0.8 mm was feasible in 90% (57/63) of patients. Gianturco coils were used in 29, Duct Occlud devices in 16, and Cook detachable coils in 12 patients. The prevalence of residual shunt at 24 hours, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months was 42%, 20%, 18%, and 14%, respectively. The reduction in prevalence of residual shunt with time tended to be greater when Gianturco coils were used (P =. 067). Logistic regression identified the use of Gianturco coils to be a significant predictor of complete ductal occlusion on follow-up (P =.04). Pull-through of coils occurred in 4.8% (3/63) and coil embolization in 6.3% (4/63). There was no association between the type of coil and the risk of embolization (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter occlusion of small persistent arterial ducts with coils is safe and effective. There is no advantage of detachable coils (Cook detachable coils and Duct Occlud devices) over nondetachable Gianturco coils in reducing the risk of embolization. Our findings are in favor of the inexpensive, but more effective, Gianturco coils for occluding small arterial ducts of 3 mm or less.

Catheterization↗