الفهرس 
Introduction and aim of workOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 107 |  |  |
| | | from | 107 | | |
Abstract
This study included a total number of 19 patients who were classified into two groups according to surgical technique performed which was selected on basis of patient grading using Pittsburgh Rating Scale (PRS) as follows: -
- group I (five patients): grade I PRS (Liposuction alone patients)
- group II (14 patients): grade II PRS (Liposuction assisted medial thigh lift patients).
Mean age of patients was 45.53 years. 84.2% of patients (16/19) were females and only three patients were males. Mean BMI was 27.73 kg/m2. 78.9% of patients (15/19) had previous body contouring surgeries with abdominoplasty being the most frequent (63.1%). Only two patients had combination with other procedure in the same setting as liposuction chin in one patient and brachioplasty in the other patient. Ten patients were considered MWL patients where nine of these ten patients were post bariatric and only one patient lose weight by diet plan.
Of the total 19 patients, three patients experienced excellent satisfaction, nine patients reported good satisfaction, six patients evaluated their outcomes as fair and one patient was poorly satisfied with outcomes of the procedure.
It was found that the width of vertically resected skin among group II patients who underwent liposuction assisted medial thigh lift ranged between 11 and 16 cm with mean of 13.29 cm. Incision pattern was inverted L-shaped, T-shaped and vertical only incision in 9 (64.3%), 3 (21.4%) and 2 (14.3%) patients respectively.
A total of seven patients (50%) developed different forms of complications as wound dehiscence (35.7%), hypertrophic scar (21.4%), seroma (14.3%), recurrent ptosis (7.1%), infection (7.1%) and scar migration (7.1%). None of the patients developed hematoma, asymmetry, skin necrosis, lymphedema or thromboembolism.
Among the five patients who underwent liposuction alone, only one patient developed mild skin ptosis that was to some extent accepted by the patient and no secondary intervention was needed and another patient experienced mild contour irregularity.
Mean differences in upper, middle and lower thigh circumference in group II patients who underwent liposuction assisted medial thigh lift were 3.57 ± 1.50, 4.42 ± 1.89 and 2.50 ± 1.17 cm respectively. Meanwhile, mean differences in upper, middle and lower thigh circumference in group I patients who underwent liposuction alone were 6 ± 1.58, 5.20 ± 1.30 and 2 ± 1.22 cm, respectively.
In patients who underwent liposuction assisted medial thigh lift; there were significant positive correlation between amount of lipoaspirate and both mean differences in upper (r= 0.75, p= 0.001) and middle (r= 0.77, p= 0.001) thigh circumferences but with insignificant correlation with mean difference in lower thigh circumference (r= 0.12, p= 0.68).
In patients who underwent liposuction assisted medial thigh lift; there were insignificant correlations between width of resected skin and mean differences in upper thigh circumference (r= 0.30, p= 0.29), middle thigh circumference (r= 0.21, p= 0.45) nor lower thigh circumference (r= 0.10, p= 0.73).
There was insignificant difference between those patients who developed postoperative complications and those who didn’t develop complications as regard baseline