Complications in Brachioplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brachioplasty procedures have experienced a surge in popularity over the past decade, mirroring the rise in bariatric procedures and growing population of massive weight loss patients. The authors estimated the incidence of associated complications and identify possible patient- or procedure-related predictive factors. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases; extracted data were synthesized through a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and a multivariate meta-regression. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 1578 patients; all studies followed an observational design. The incidence of adverse outcomes assessed included aberrant scarring, 9.9 percent (95 percent CI, 6.1 to 15.6 percent); ptosis or recurrence, 7.79 percent (95 percent CI, 4.8 to 12.35 percent); wound dehiscence, 6.81 percent (95 percent CI, 4.63 to 9.90 percent); seroma, 5.91 percent (95 percent CI, 3.75 to 9.25 percent); infection, 3.64 percent (95 percent CI, 2.38 to 5.53 percent); nerve-related complications, 2.47 percent (95 percent CI, 1.45 to 4.18 percent); lymphedema or lymphocele formation, 2.46 percent (95 percent CI, 1.55 to 3.88 percent); skin necrosis or delayed healing, 2.27 percent (95 percent CI, 1.37 to 3.74 percent); and hematoma, 2.06 percent (95 percent CI, 1.38 to 3.06 percent). The operative reintervention rate for aesthetic purposes was 7.46 percent (95 percent CI, 5.05 to 10.88 percent), and the operative reintervention rate for nonaesthetic purposes was 1.62 percent (95 percent CI, 1.00 to 2.61 percent). Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that medial incision placement was associated with a higher risk of complications, whereas the incidence of certain complications was lowered with adjunctive liposuction (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In the absence of large clinical trials, the present meta-analysis can serve to provide plastic surgeons with an evidence-based reference to improve informed consent and guide procedure selection with respect to the complication profile of brachioplasty.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".