Patient Versus Surgeon Preferences Between Traditional and Neo-omphaloplasty in Post-bariatric Abdominoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty procedures have been proven highly valuable in promoting better quality of life for post-bariatric surgery patients. The literature reveals that the aspect of the navel is one of the most problematic issues regarding surgical results and many different surgical techniques have been proposed to obtain a satisfactory outcome. However, little is known about patients' preferences regarding these different techniques and their results. The aim of the present study was to compare evaluations made by plastic surgeons and patients of the results of two different techniques-traditional omphaloplasty and neo-omphaloplasty with lateral flaps.

METHODS: Five plastic surgeons analyzed postoperative pictures of 54 post-bariatric abdominoplasties performed between 2008 and 2013 at the Unicamp Hospital. Pictures of 12 cases were selected and evaluated by 50 patients waiting for a post-bariatric abdominoplasty. A standardized scale was used that contained the following criteria: volume of the abdomen, lateral contour, quality of the scars, umbilicus and skin excess/flaccidity.

RESULTS: Surgeons gave the highest scores to 71.6% of neo-omphaloplasty cases and patients to 43.7%. Both surgeons and patients graded navels operated on using this technique higher, although the comparison was not statistically significant for patient evaluations (p = 0.062). The navel aspect was considered the fourth most relevant aspect among those evaluated.

CONCLUSION: Neo-omphaloplasty results were considered better than traditional omphaloplasty for surgeons and patients, although there was not a clear differentiation of results by the latter. The navel postoperative aspect was considered secondarily important by patients to the results of post-bariatric abdominoplasties.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .