Secondary abdominal contour surgery: a review of early and late reoperative surgery

A retrospective chart review of 400 abdominal contour operations produced a series of 24 patients who underwent both their primary and then their secondary abdominal contour surgeries with the senior author (Matarasso). The majority of patients were classified and treated according to the abdominoplasty classification system previously described; however, a subgroup could not be categorized according to this system. In this study, the authors identified the secondary abdominal contour surgical experience of one surgeon. A comparison was made between two groups of patients treated for both primary and secondary operations: group I, considered early, less than 18 months after the previous operation; and group II, considered late, 18 or more months after the previous operation. There was a significant difference between groups I and II (chi2 = 4.12, p = 0.05); most patients had their surgical procedures before 18 months. For patients who underwent either a miniabdominoplasty or a full primary abdominoplasty, there was a statistically significant difference between the number of patients treated in group I and the number in group II (Fisher's exact test, D = 0, p = 0.05). Next, the nature of the secondary procedure was determined to be either a revisional procedure or a completely new reoperative procedure. The majority of patients underwent revision or "touch-ups," accomplished with either liposuction alone or in combination with scar revision. There was no significant difference between types of primary and secondary procedures performed in group I or group II. Secondary abdominal contour surgery accounted for 6 percent (24 of 400) of all abdominal contour procedures performed by one surgeon. Complete secondary surgery, performing an additional open procedure, occurred in 21 percent of cases (five of 24). Revision surgery (scar revision or removal of dog-ears) was performed in 29 percent of all cases (seven of 24). There was a 4 percent (one of 24) complication rate requiring operative intervention. This rate is consistent with that reported in the literature for primary abdominal contour surgery. With the overall acceptance of aesthetic surgery increasing, the number of patients undergoing abdominoplasty increasing, an aging population, and the safety of secondary abdominal contour surgery suggested from this review, it is likely that plastic surgeons will see more patients requesting secondary abdominal contour surgery in the future.