MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589870858 · doi:10.1177/229255030000800301

Current Status of Suction Lipectomy in Canada: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Plastic Surgeons

2000· article· en· W2589870858 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiposuctionSeromaSurgeryComplicationPlastic surgerySuctionHematomaGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Suction lipectomy is the most common aesthetic surgery performed in North America. The safety of the procedure has recently been questioned, particularly with respect to large volume aspiration. Objective To delineate Canadian liposuction practice patterns and perceived complication rates. Subjects and Methods A survey was mailed to all plastic surgeons registered with the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons. The survey assessed surgeon demographics, hospital admission rates following liposuction, techniques used, wetting solutions, aspirate volumes and complications. Results A total of 322 surveys were mailed. The response rate was 44%. Of the 142 surgeons who responded, 119 regularly performed suction lipectomy. They reported that 70% of patients had suction lipectomy performed on an outpatient basis. Forty per cent of procedures were performed in private clinics. On average, surgeons performed 40 liposuctions/year without ancillary procedures and 27 liposuctions/year with ancillary procedures. Fifteen per cent of surgeons used ultrasound-assisted liposuction as an adjunct to traditional liposuction, although less than 1% used it exclusively. The ratio of aspirate to infiltrate was 0.25 to one in 45% of cases, 0.5 to one in 37%, one to one in 17% and one to one in fewer than 1%. In 69% of patients, 1 to 2 L was aspirated, while in fewer than 5% of patients, more than 3.5 L was aspirated. Early complication rates were as follows: hematoma and seroma 2.6%, infection 1.3% and skin loss 0.01%. Contour irregularity was the main late complication, occurring in 12% of patients. No cases of venous thrombosis, or pulmonary or fat emboli were reported. No deaths were reported. Conclusions Suction lipectomy is performed commonly by Canadian plastic surgeons, with the majority using a wet or superwet technique. In the vast majority of patients, fewer than 3500 cm 3 are aspirated. The complication rate is perceived to be low.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it