INTRODUCTION
In plastic surgery, body-contouring surgery is currently becoming increasingly
popular due to the appreciation of a well-toned body in modern times.
Liposuction associated with lipectomy is one of the most performed surgical
procedures in plastic surgery. Although regarded as a safe surgery,
considerations should be taken on its possible metabolic effects1.
It is presently known that the subcutaneous tissue acts as an endocrine organ
that produces adipocytokines that help maintain homeostasis. Based on this, some
plastic surgeons have assessed the metabolic effects of liposuction on fat
reduction. Another associated procedure that removes fat from the subcutaneous
tissue is dermolipectomy2.
The development of the tumescent technique for liposuction allowed a safer
removal of large amounts of fat. With the knowledge that the adipose tissue is
an endocrine organ, this alternative led researchers to believe that liposuction
could be a viable method for improving the metabolic profile through immediate
loss of body fat mass, a possible coadjuvant in the treatment of obesity and
comorbidities3, associated with
physical activity and lifestyle changes.
Studies in humans suggest that large-volume liposuction can increase the
proportion of visceral adipose tissue compared to abdominal tissue, and this
leads us to think of possible metabolic complications related to the
procedure4.
Does liposuction have repercussions on the lipid profile of patients undergoing
body-contouring surgery? In medical literature, there are several studies that
show dissonant and sometimes contradictory conclusions regarding alterations in
the lipid profile of patients undergoing liposuction and dermolipectomies3,4.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to compare the lipid profile variations in the
early and late postoperative period in patients undergoing liposuction and
dermolipectomy.
METHODS
Between October 2006 and June 2012, the lipid profile of 40 female patients
undergoing liposuction and dermolipectomy was analyzed through preoperative and
postoperative examinations.
The surgeries performed were mammoplasty + liposuction, abdominoplasty +
liposuction, and lipoabdominoplasty + mammoplasty. The patients were divided
into 2 groups:
- Group 1: Ten patients underwent examinations in the preoperative
period, and these were repeated 3 months postoperatively.
- Group 2: Thirty patients underwent examinations in the preoperative
period, and these were repeated 1 year postoperatively.
A comparative analysis of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL),
low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and triglycerides was performed for the groups.
Three comparisons were performed: In group 1, the results of the preoperative
examinations were compared to the 3-month postoperative results. In group 2, the
results of the preoperative examinations were compared to the 1-year
postoperative results. After this analysis, the 3-month postoperative results of
group 1 were compared to the 1-year postoperative results of group 2.
All patients in the study were aware of the need to return periodically to the
clinic in the postoperative period to undergo blood tests and clinical
assessments.
The inclusion criteria were as follows: participation and willingness to undergo
complementary examinations relevant for the study in predetermined times; volume
of liposuction not exceeding 5–7% of the body weight as recommended by
Resolution No. 1711 of December 10, 2003, of the Brazilian Federal Council of
Medicine (Conselho Federal de Medicina), use of the tumescent technique5 and surgical risk ASA I or II. The
exclusion criteria were as follows: body mass index (BMI) > 30
kg/m2 before dietary re-education and weight reduction,
associated with physical activity; gastroplasty; surgeries combined with another
specialty; gigantomastia (estimated weight of the resection > 800–1000 g)
associated with abdominal apron (estimated weight of resections > 2000 g) and
lipodystrophy of the flanks and dorsum (large volume and area liposuctions were
estimated), except if patients agree to undergo only lipoabdominoplasty and
liposuction of the flanks in the first procedure and mammoplasty in the future;
changes in their physical condition in the 1-year postoperative period or
increase of ≥ 2 kg/m2 in the BMI; pregnancy after surgery; and
dyslipidemia with medication use for such a pathology.
Operations in all patients were performed by a single plastic surgeon using the
same surgical technique and from private practice. The laboratory tests were
performed in the pre- and postoperative period in the same laboratory.
Statistical tests were performed with significance level set at a
P-value < 0.05. All patients were advised about the
postoperative period and importance of performing physical activity pre- and
postoperatively.
RESULTS
Of the 40 patients who were followed in the study, 20 were selected (after
applying the exclusion criteria).
Of the 20 excluded patients, 7 showed changes in the BMI; 6 patients were not
present in the follow-up consultation and did not undergo postoperative
examinations; 5 showed changes in physical condition; and 2 patients were
excluded as they had dyslipidemia and were using statin.
The analyzed patients were aged between 30 and 59 years and had BMI < 30
kg/m2, with an average of 26.4 kg/m2 (SD = 2.2). The
mean liposuction volume was 3,415 mL (SD = 1.024). The patients had a mean total
cholesterol level of 197.7 mg/dL (SD = 34.3), LDL level of 118.4 mg/dL (SD =
24.6), HDL level of 51.3 mg/dL (SD = 10.7), and triglyceride level of 127.2
mg/dL (SD = 60.8). All patients underwent lipoabdominoplasty and liposculpture
surgeries, and 7 (35%) also underwent breast surgery (Table 1).
Table 1 - General profile of the sample in the preoperative period (n =
20)
|
Mean |
SD |
Min |
Max |
Age |
43 |
9 |
30 |
59 |
BMI |
26.4 |
2.2 |
22.3 |
30.0 |
Liposuction volume |
3,415 |
1,024 |
1,050 |
4,800 |
Total cholesterol |
197.7 |
34.3 |
124.0 |
260.0 |
LDL |
118.4 |
24.6 |
80.0 |
174.2 |
HDL |
51.3 |
10.7 |
36.0 |
73.0 |
TRIG |
127.2 |
60.8 |
39.0 |
277.0 |
Surgeries Performed |
|
|
N |
% |
Lipoabdominoplasty and liposuction |
|
|
7 |
35% |
Lipoabdominoplasty, liposuction, and
mammoplasty
|
|
|
13 |
65% |
Table 1 - General profile of the sample in the preoperative period (n =
20)
Table 2 shows data on the profile of
selected patients and preoperative data in each group. Although there are no
preoperative parameters that distinguish groups 1 and 2, this analysis had to
evaluate the homogeneity between groups to subsequently compare the 3-month and
1-year postoperative measurements.
Table 2 - Preoperative profile of patients per group (G1, n = 10; G2, n =
10).
|
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Mann-Whitney U
test (P-value)
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
SD |
Min |
Max |
Age |
43 |
10 |
30 |
59 |
43 |
10 |
32 |
57 |
0.9710 |
BMI |
26.7 |
2.2 |
|
|
26.0 |
2.3 |
|
|
0.3930 |
Liposuction volume |
3,555 |
993 |
1,050 |
4,800 |
3,275 |
1,088 |
1,400 |
4,600 |
0.4810 |
Total cholesterol |
195.7 |
42.0 |
160.0 |
241.0 |
199.7 |
26.6 |
124.0 |
260.0 |
0.6840 |
LDL |
118.0 |
31.5 |
97.0 |
148.0 |
118.7 |
16.9 |
80.0 |
174.2 |
1.0000 |
HDL |
50.8 |
10.2 |
37.0 |
73.0 |
51.8 |
11.7 |
36.0 |
64.0 |
1.0000 |
TRIG |
112.6 |
61.2 |
66.0 |
277.0 |
141.7 |
60.0 |
39.0 |
221.0 |
0.2180 |
Table 2 - Preoperative profile of patients per group (G1, n = 10; G2, n =
10).
As it can be observed, the groups did not show statistically significant
differences (p > 0.05) regarding the analyzed variables
(age, BMI, liposuction volume, and preoperative total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and
triglyceride levels) and can therefore be considered a single sample.
The subsequent analyses compared the pre- and postoperative lipid measurements,
and group 1 was assessed 3 months postoperatively and group 2 was assessed 1
year postoperatively.
The analysis in group 1 showed a decrease in the mean total cholesterol and LDL
levels and an increase in HDL and triglyceride levels. However, no significant
differences (p > 0.05) were found between the preoperative
and 3-month postoperative measurements (Table 3).
Table 3 - Group 1 cholesterol data (n = 10)
|
Preoperative |
Postoperative (3 months)
|
Wilcoxon signed rank
test (P-value)
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Total cholesterol |
195.70 |
42.02 |
192.80 |
23.87 |
0.799 |
LDL |
118.04 |
31.53 |
117.18 |
21.00 |
0.721 |
HDL |
50.80 |
10.17 |
53.54 |
7.67 |
0.333 |
TRIG |
112.60 |
61.19 |
113.40 |
40.24 |
0.646 |
Table 3 - Group 1 cholesterol data (n = 10)
Contrary to group 1, the analysis in group 2 showed an increase in the mean total
cholesterol and LDL levels and a decrease in HDL and triglyceride levels.
However, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found
between the preoperative and 1-year postoperative measurements (Table 4).
Table 4 - Group 2 cholesterol data (G1, n = 10; G2, n = 10).
|
Preoperative |
Postoperative (1 year)
|
Wilcoxon signed rank
test (P-value)
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Total cholesterol |
199.70 |
26.61 |
202.70 |
20.69 |
0.721 |
LDL |
118.70 |
16.87 |
122.00 |
34.02 |
0.314 |
HDL |
51.80 |
11.66 |
47.90 |
7.08 |
0.138 |
TRIG |
141.70 |
59.96 |
135.60 |
33.96 |
0.760 |
Table 4 - Group 2 cholesterol data (G1, n = 10; G2, n = 10).
The subsequent analysis compared the 3-month postoperative measurements of group
1 with the 1-year postoperative measurements of group 2. This analysis was
possible as the groups showed homogeneous preoperative measurements. However,
because the measurements do not belong to the same group of patients in the two
analyzed periods, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine whether the
postoperative cholesterol measurements differ between the groups (Table 5).
Table 5 - .Groups 1 (3 months) and 2 (1 year) cholesterol data (n =
20).
|
Postoperative (3 months)
|
Postoperative (1 year)
|
Wilcoxon signed rank
test (P-value)
|
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Total cholesterol |
192.80 |
23.87 |
202.70 |
20.69 |
0.9120 |
LDL |
117.18 |
21.00 |
122.00 |
34.02 |
0.6840 |
HDL |
53.54 |
7.67 |
47.90 |
7.08 |
0.1900 |
TRIG |
113.40 |
40.24 |
135.60 |
33.96 |
0.2180 |
Table 5 - .Groups 1 (3 months) and 2 (1 year) cholesterol data (n =
20).
The measurements showed no statistically significant differences, but there was a
trend in the increase in total cholesterol and LDL levels and decrease in HDL
and triglyceride levels.
Figure 1 shows the mean cholesterol
measurements at the three analyzed periods. Although the comparison between the
periods was not statistically conclusive, there is a trend for alterations in
the 3-month postoperative measurements and equilibrium in the 1-year
postoperative measurements with values close to those observed in the
preoperative period.
Figure 1 - Preoperative and postoperative mean cholesterol
measurements.
Figure 1 - Preoperative and postoperative mean cholesterol
measurements.
The next analysis is aimed at identifying possible correlations between
liposuction volume and cholesterol measurements.
Correlation analysis was conducted to measure the degree of association between
two variables. Spearman’s coefficient was used in this analysis.
A significance test was then performed with the initial hypothesis that there is
no association between the variables. P-values < 0.05
indicate a significant association (Table 6).
Table 6 - Correlation of the pre- and postoperative cholesterol differences
with liposuction volume (G1, n = 10; G2, n = 10)
Correlation |
G1, postoperative (3 months) |
G2, postoperative (1 year) |
Spearman's coefficient |
P-value
|
Spearman's coefficient |
P-value
|
Liposuction volume × total cholesterol |
0.11 |
0.3814 |
0.05 |
0.4433 |
Liposuction volume × LDL |
0.17 |
0.3186 |
-0.21 |
0.2769 |
Liposuction volume × HDL |
-0.34 |
0.1717 |
-0.34 |
0.1710 |
Liposuction volume × TRIG |
0.48 |
0.0793 |
0.03 |
0.4667 |
Table 6 - Correlation of the pre- and postoperative cholesterol differences
with liposuction volume (G1, n = 10; G2, n = 10)
The following correlations indicate that the difference between the preoperative
and 3-month postoperative triglyceride levels has a direct association with
liposuction volume, although inconclusive (p = 0.0793).
Conversely, there was no trend in the 1-year postoperative values
(p = 0.4667). Thus, considering the 3-month postoperative
period, higher liposuction volumes lead to greater decreases in triglyceride
levels. Moreover, 1 year postoperatively, the liposuction volume no longer
influences the triglyceride levels.
In other cholesterol measurements, no statistically significant correlations were
observed. However, for HDL, both the 3-month and 1-year coefficients were
negative, indicating that there is a trend, although inconclusive, and that
higher liposuction volumes lead to less pronounced decreases in HDL levels.
DISCUSSION
Removal of a significant volume of fat from the subcutaneous tissue through
liposuction creates a visible change in body composition through a rapid decline
in subcutaneous adipose tissue. There are beneficial effects on traditional
forms of weight loss, in which both subcutaneous and intra-abdominal adipose
tissues are reduced. However, physiological and metabolic effects that result
only from subcutaneous fat loss are still not well established.
The subcutaneous fat has different metabolic implications compared to visceral
adipose tissue and is the main source of energy and free fatty acids.
Although experimental animal studies have shown that fat elimination from the
body improves serum lipid levels, some studies in humans suggested that
large-volume liposuction can increase the proportion of visceral adipose tissue,
which raises the concern of possible metabolic complications related to
liposuction and increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases4. Matarasso et al.5 assessed the impact of liposuction on body fat and
concluded that although large-volume liposuction removes a small amount of fat
from the body, this significantly increases the proportion of visceral fat.
Samdal et al.6 assessed patients undergoing
large-volume liposuction and their lipid profiles in the preoperative and
postoperative periods (1, 9, and 12 months after surgery). The major finding of
the study was a significant increase in HDL level in all patients. Based on the
mean HDL level increase of 0.2 mm/L, the authors showed that large-volume
liposuction can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by up to 30%. In our
case series, there was no improvement in HDL levels 1 year postoperatively.
Capla and Rubin7 prospectively analyzed 322
patients who underwent liposuction and/or abdominoplasty and the impact on the
lipid profile after 3 months. The study showed a significant reduction in
triglyceride levels and no changes in cholesterol levels. In our study, it was
observed that at 3 months postoperatively, LDL and total cholesterol levels
improved and triglyceride levels worsened, but these changes were not
statistically significant.
In agreement with our study, Cazes, in 1996, showed that there were no changes in
the lipid profile of patients undergoing lipoabdominoplasty 12 months
postoperatively. Associated with this, the study also showed the efficacy of
physical exercise on the lipid profile of patients, which reduces the lipogram
after the metabolic stress caused by liposuction8,9.
CONCLUSION
After the preoperative and postoperative analyses of 20 patients undergoing
liposuction and dermolipectomies, no statistically significant changes were
observed in the lipid profile, with a trend to equilibrium 1 year
postoperatively to levels close to that observed in the preoperative period.
COLLABORATIONS
LDPB
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
JDLGA
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
MB
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
GCS
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
ACC
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
RCSD
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
JGOJ
|
Analysis and/or data interpretation, conception and design study,
conceptualization, data curation, final manuscript approval, formal
analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project
administration, realization of operations and/or trials, resources,
software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing - original
draft preparation, writing - review & editing.
|
REFERENCES
1. Vandeweyer E. Does liposuction influence lipidogram in females: in
vivo study Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2002;26(1):17-9. PMID:
11891591
2. Sarici M, Demirseren ME, Durgun M, Ceran C, Yenidunya MO. Effects of
reduction mammoplasty on metabolic profile and body weight. Aesthetic Plast
Surg. 2011;35(6):995-9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9719-7
3. Benatti FB, Lira FS, Oyama LM, do Nascimento CM, Lancha AH Jr.
Strategies for reducing body fat mass: effects of liposuction and exercise on
cardiovascular risk factors and adiposity. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes.
2011;4:141-54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DMSO.S12143
4. Robles-Cervantes JA, Yánez-Díaz S, Cárdenas-Camarena L. Modification
of insulin, glucose and cholesterol levels in nonobese women undergoing
liposuction: is liposuction metabolically safe? Ann Plast Surg. 2004;52(1):64-7.
PMID: 14676702
5. Matarasso A, Kim RW, Kral JG. The impact of liposuction on body fat.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(5):1686-9. PMID: 9774031
6. Samdal F, Birkeland KI, Ose L, Amland PF. Effect of large-volume
liposuction on sex hormones and glucose- and lipid metabolism in females.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1995;19(2):131-5.
7. Capla JM, Rubin JP. Discussion: Prospective clinical study reveals
significant reduction in triglyceride level and white blood cell count after
liposuction and abdominoplasty and no change in cholesterol levels. Plast
Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(3):198e-200e. PMID: 21865993
8. Benatti F, Solis M, Artioli G, Montag E, Painelli V, Saito F, et al.
Liposuction induces a compensatory increase of visceral fat which is effectively
counteracted by physical activity: a randomized trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab.
2012;97(7):2388-95. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2012-1012
9. Yazigi Solis M, Artioli GG, Montag E, de Salles Painelli V, Saito
FL, Lima FR, et al. The liposuction-induced effects on adiponectin and selected
cytokines are not affected by exercise training in women. Int J Endocrinol.
2014;2014:315382. DOI: 10.1155/2014/315382
1. Hospital Daher Lago Sul, Brasília, DF,
Brazil
2. Clínica Di Lamartine e Galdino de Cirurgia
Plástica, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Jefferson Di Lamartine
Galdino Amaral SCN QD.02, Torre A, Salas 1121 e 1123 - 11º Andar -
“Shopping Liberty Mall” - Brasília, DF, Brazil Zip Code 70712-903 E-mail:
jefferson@dilamartine.com.br
Article received: March 18, 2018.
Article accepted: November 11, 2018.
Conflicts of interest: none.