INTRODUCTION
Abdominoplasty or abdominal dermolipectomy was described by Kelly1 in 1899 and is among the most common
plastic surgery procedures.
Liposuction combined with abdominal dermolipectomy was described by Avelar² in
1998 and has subsequently been accepted as a routine procedure by other
authors3-6.
Despite advances in various techniques and adaptations of this procedure, there
is still no unanimous agreement on the creation of an umbilical scar, which
remains a major challenge in abdominal plastic surgery.
The umbilical scar divides the human body exactly in the middle, according to
Marcus Vitruvius7, a Roman architect, and
this concept was perfected by Leonardo da Vinci in 1490. The evolution of
omphaloplasty began in 1924, when Frist8
performed the first transposition of the umbilicus. Since then, many variations
have been used in an attempt to approximate the appearance of the original
umbilicus.
In the 1970s, Baroud9 and Regnaut7 used horizontal incisions in the
abdominal flap, while in 1978, Avelar10
used a star-shaped incision.
Several techniques have been described: Juri et al.11 proposed the use of a V-shaped incision, Massiha et
al.12 added a circular umbilical
incision and a triangular incision in the abdominal flap, Malic et al.13 used an inverted U-shaped incision in
the flap, and Castillo et al.14 used
Y-shaped de-epithelized skin flaps.
Several authors2,7,8,9,13,15 have used
various geometric shapes (Mercedes star, lozenge, ellipse, cross, rectangle,
shield shape, infinity logo, and y-shape) in an attempt to obtain a more natural
result in the creation of the umbilicus, but there is still no consensus on the
best technique.
OBJECTIVE
To demonstrate the applicability and satisfaction with omphaloplasty based on an
isosceles triangle with double fixation in abdominoplasty.
METHODS
This study included 97 female patients, with a mean age of 45 years (range, 25 to
65 years) who underwent omphaloplasty between January 2014 and December
2015.
The surgeries were performed at the STK-Plastic Surgery Center in Belo Horizonte,
MG, by the same surgeon.
All patients received the same pre-, intra-, and postoperative care.
The guidelines of the principles of Helsinki were followed.
Surgical technique
The abdominal flap was freed using an isosceles triangular incision, with an
upper base measuring 2 cm and sides measuring 2.5 cm (Figure 1A and B).
Figure 1 - A: Demarcation of the umbilicus still fixed to
the abdominal flap; B: Upper base of the umbilicus
measuring 2 cm, with sides measuring 2.5 cm.
Figure 1 - A: Demarcation of the umbilicus still fixed to
the abdominal flap; B: Upper base of the umbilicus
measuring 2 cm, with sides measuring 2.5 cm.
The abdominal flap was provisionally fixed in the suprapubic region (Figure 2).
Figure 2 - Provisional fixation of the dermal-fat flap in the pubic
area.
Figure 2 - Provisional fixation of the dermal-fat flap in the pubic
area.
The demarcation of the new umbilical implantation site began with a linear,
2-cm horizontal incision in the abdominal flap in place of the original
projection of the umbilicus in the skin (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Linear, horizontal, 2-cm incision on the abdominal flap at
the level of the projection of the original umbilicus in the
skin.
Figure 3 - Linear, horizontal, 2-cm incision on the abdominal flap at
the level of the projection of the original umbilicus in the
skin.
A triangle measuring approximately 0.5 cm was then removed from the middle
third of the lower border of this incision (Figure 4 A and B).
Figure 4 - A and B: Removal of a triangle
measuring approximately 0.5 cm from the middle third of the
lower edge of this incision.
Figure 4 - A and B: Removal of a triangle
measuring approximately 0.5 cm from the middle third of the
lower edge of this incision.
Once the skin incision was made at the new umbilical site, the flap fixation
site was released to the suprapubic region. This flap was lifted to expose
the detachment area and umbilicus. Fixation was performed with 3-0
monofilament nylon between the medial region of the upper edge of the new
umbilical incision and the aponeurosis of the rectus abdominis at the upper
base of the umbilical pedicle (Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5 - Suture fixation with 3-0 monofilament nylon between the
medial region of the dermis in the upper portion of the
umbilical incision with the aponeurosis of the rectus
abdominis.
Figure 5 - Suture fixation with 3-0 monofilament nylon between the
medial region of the dermis in the upper portion of the
umbilical incision with the aponeurosis of the rectus
abdominis.
Figure 6 - Mounting the upper abdominal flap to the cephalic base of the
umbilical stump.
Figure 6 - Mounting the upper abdominal flap to the cephalic base of the
umbilical stump.
Next, the upper portion of the new umbilical incision was attached with a
transcutaneous U-point to the upper portion of the umbilicus (Figure 7), with the knot buried in the
umbilicus.
Figure 7 - Transcutaneous U sutures joining the central portion of the
umbilical base in the subdermal region of the upper portion of
the umbilical incision.
Figure 7 - Transcutaneous U sutures joining the central portion of the
umbilical base in the subdermal region of the upper portion of
the umbilical incision.
The umbilicus was transferred through the incision in the abdominal flap
(Figure 8).
Figure 8 - Transfer of the umbilicus through the abdominal flap
incision.
Figure 8 - Transfer of the umbilicus through the abdominal flap
incision.
The angles of the umbilical triangle correspond to the angles of the flap
incision and are fixed with 4-0 nylon monofilament (Figure 9).
Figure 9 - Fixation of the angles of the umbilical triangle to the
angles of the skin incision.
Figure 9 - Fixation of the angles of the umbilical triangle to the
angles of the skin incision.
Suturing of the umbilicus at the new site was completed with interrupted U
sutures, using 4-0 monofilament nylon with knots buried in the umbilicus
(Figure 10).
Figure 10 - Fixation of the umbilical scar on a new bed using interrupted
U sutures.
Figure 10 - Fixation of the umbilical scar on a new bed using interrupted
U sutures.
Finally, the inferior portion of the new umbilical incision was fixed in the
abdominal flap to the aponeurosis of the rectus abdominis in the caudal
portion of the umbilical pedicle, avoiding displacement of the umbilicus in
the postoperative period and minimizing traction on the umbilical scar
(Figure 11).
Figure 11 - Fixation of the infraumbilical portion of the abdominal flap
to the aponeurosis of the rectus abdominis in the caudal portion
of the umbilical stump.
Figure 11 - Fixation of the infraumbilical portion of the abdominal flap
to the aponeurosis of the rectus abdominis in the caudal portion
of the umbilical stump.
The abdominal flap was then pulled up to the suprapubic line for definitive
fixation. Silicone umbilical belts were used in all patients.
RESULTS
The 97 patients were followed for up to 12 months after classic abdominal
dermolipectomy with omphaloplasty based on an isosceles triangle with double
fixation. A questionnaire was used for self-evaluation (Table 1) at 1 year postoperatively. Patients were asked
about the degree of satisfaction with the umbilical abdominoplasty scar and
whether they would recommend the surgery to a friend; they were also encouraged
to write any comments related to the surgery.
Table 1 - Patient self-assessment of satisfaction.
|
Very Satisfied |
% |
Satisfied |
% |
Slightly Satisfied |
% |
Yes |
% |
No |
% |
How do you rate the abdominal scar? |
83 |
85.5 |
08 |
8.2 |
06 |
6.1 |
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the umbilical scar? |
80 |
82.5 |
10 |
10.3 |
07 |
7.2 |
|
|
|
|
Would you recommend the surgery to a friend? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
92 |
94.8 |
05 |
5.1 |
List any relevant observations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1 - Patient self-assessment of satisfaction.
In all, 85.5% of the patients were very satisfied with the final outcome of the
procedure, 8.2% were satisfied, and 6.1% were slightly satisfied. With respect
to the umbilical scar, 82.5% were very satisfied, 10.3% were satisfied, and 7.2%
were slightly satisfied.
Only 11 patients commented on the size of the abdominoplasty scar and 18
complained of severe postoperative pain.
The surgeon assessed these 97 abdominoplasty patients at 90, 180, and 360 days
postoperatively. At 1 year, the patients were evaluated for umbilical position
on the abdomen, type of scar (atrophic, hypertrophic, and contracted), and scar
depth; the overall results were satisfactory, with a low rate of complications
(Figures 12, 13, 14, 15).
Figure 12 - A: Preoperative appearance; B:
Immediate postoperative appearance.
Figure 12 - A: Preoperative appearance; B:
Immediate postoperative appearance.
Figure 13 - A: preoperative appearance; B:
Postoperative appearance at 3 months.
Figure 13 - A: preoperative appearance; B:
Postoperative appearance at 3 months.
Figure 14 - A: preoperative appearance; B:
Postoperative appearance at 6 months.
Figure 14 - A: preoperative appearance; B:
Postoperative appearance at 6 months.
Figure 15 - A: preoperative appearance; B:
Postoperative appearance at 12 months.
Figure 15 - A: preoperative appearance; B:
Postoperative appearance at 12 months.
The complications are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 - Scar complications.
Contraction |
Number |
Percentage |
Hypertrophy |
03 |
3.09% |
Atrophy |
02 |
2.06% |
Necrosis |
02 |
2.06% |
Necrose |
00 |
0% |
Table 2 - Scar complications.
DISCUSSION
The degree of satisfaction with abdominoplasty is usually high because of visible
postoperative improvement, compared to the appearance of an abdomen affected by
multiparity and fluctuations in body weight.
A poor-quality umbilicus compromises satisfaction with abdominoplasty, and the
choice of an appropriate technique is a challenge for the plastic surgeon.
The technique described herein, with abdominal flap fixation to the aponeurosis
of the rectus abdominis, superior and inferior to the umbilicus, avoids traction
on the umbilical scar, favors the healing process, and promotes a natural
appearance, approximating that of an ideal umbilical scar.
The 7 patients who reported poor satisfaction with the umbilical scar underwent a
second surgical procedure for correction. This group included 2 patients with an
enlarged scar, 2 with a hypertrophic scar, and 3 with scar contraction. Another
patient with contraction had an unsatisfactory outcome, but the evaluation was
made by the surgeon alone. All other patients reported being satisfied or very
satisfied with the umbilical scar.
The 5 patients who would not recommend the surgery to a friend thought that the
scar would be smaller, despite being given preoperative information. These 5
were among the 8 who reported only slight satisfaction with the abdominal
scar.
Only 11 patients reported expecting a different appearance. Another 18 reported
postoperative pain.
CONCLUSION
Omphaloplasty based on an isosceles triangle with double fixation was easy to
perform and resulted in a more natural appearance, with overall patient
satisfaction.
COLLABORATIONS
RC
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; statistical analyses; final
approval of the manuscript; conception and design of the study;
completion of surgeries and/or experiments; writing the manuscript
or critical review of its contents.
|
BVBLC
|
Analysis and/or interpretation of data; statistical analyses; writing
the manuscript or critical review of its contents.
|
REFERENCES
1. Kelly HA. Report of gynecological cases (excessive growth of fat).
Johns Hopkins Med J. 1899;10:197-201.
2. Avelar JM. Uma nova técnica de abdominoplastia: sistema vascular
fechado de retalho subdérmico dobrado sobre si mesmo, combinado com
lipoaspiração. Rev Bras Cir. 1999;88/89(1/6):3-20.
3. Fournier PF, Otteni F. Treatment of localized lipodystrophies by
aspiration. Chir Esthetic. 1982;59(2):73-8.
4. Klein JA. Tumescent technique for regional anesthesia permits
lidocaine doses of 35 mg/kg for liposuction. J Dermatol Surg Oncol.
1990;16(3):248-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4725.1990.tb03961.x
5. Carvalho GB, Ribeiro VMN, Barbosa RCC, Coelho EM, Ferreira AC.
Lipoaspiração. Res Hosp Geral Fortaleza. 2003;12(2):23-4.
6. Saldanha OR, De Souza Pinto EB, Mattos WN Jr, Pazetti CE, Lopes
Bello EM, Rojas Y, et al. Lipoabdominoplasty with selective and safe
undermining. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2003;27(4):322-7.
7. Regnault P. The history of abdominal dermolipectomy. Aesthetic Plast
Surg. 1978;2(1):113-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01577945
8. Castro DPR, Saldanha OR, Pinto EBS, Albuquerque FM, Moia SMS.
Avaliação estética da cicatriz umbilical em duas técnicas de onfaloplastia. Rev
Bras Cir Plást. 2014;29(2):248-52
9. Baroudi R. Umbilicaplasty. Clin Plast Surg.
1975;2(3):431-48.
10. Avelar J. Abdominoplasty-Systematization of a technique without
external umbilical scar. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1978;2(1):141-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01577947
11. Juri J, Juri C, Raiden G. Reconstruction of the umbilicus in
abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1979;63(4):580-2. PMID: 424470 DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-197904000-00032
12. Massiha H, Montegut W, Phillips R. A method of reconstructing a
natural-looking umbilicus in abdominoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 1997;38(3):228-31.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-199703000-00007
13. Malic CC, Spyrou GE, Hough M, Fourie L. Patient satisfaction with
two different methods of umbilicoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg.
2007;119(1):357-61. PMID: 17255693 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000244907.06440.f8
14. Castillo PF, Sepúlveda CA, Prado AC, Troncoso AL, Villamán JJ.
Umbilical reinsertion in abdominoplasty: technique using deepithelialized skin
flaps. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31(5):519-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0225-2
15. López-Tallaj L, Gervais J. Restauração umbilical na abdominoplastia:
uma simples técnica retangular. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2001;16(3):39-46.x
1. Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, São
Paulo, SP, Brazil
2. Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros, Montes
Claros, MG, Brazil
3. Faculdade de Medicina de Petrópolis, Faculdade
Arthur Sá Earp Neto, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil.
Corresponding author: Roney Campos Av
João César de Oliveira, nº 1298, sala 605 - Eldorado, Contagem, MG, Brasil Zip
Code 32310-000 E-mail: roneycampos66@hotmail.com
Article received: April 6, 2017.
Article accepted: November 27, 2018.
Conflicts of interest: none.