The Management of Mild Skin Laxity in Post-Gravidic Diastasis Recti: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Mini-Inverted-T and Mini-Abdominoplasty With BODY-Q

Abstract

French

Introduction

Post-gravidic diastasis recti is corrected with conventional abdominoplasty in patients with adequate skin laxity. For unsuitable patients, other procedures are considered.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on patients undergoing mini-abdominoplasty or mini-inverted-T abdominoplasty from 2019 to 2023 at our institution, excluding overweight and post-bariatric patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the BODY-Q questionnaire, administered one year postoperatively. Two plastic surgeons assessed pre and postoperative photographs, rating cosmetic outcomes on a Likert scale. Complication rates were also compared.

Results

A total of 64 patients had mini-abdominoplasty and 73 underwent mini-inverted-T abdominoplasty. The groups were similar in age, pregnancies, and smoking habit (P > .05). The mini-abdominoplasty group had a lower mean BMI (20.81 ± 1.69 vs 21.44 ± 1.58 kg/m²; P = .028) and narrower mean diastasis (4.65 ± 1.10 vs 5.08 ± 1.19 cm; P = .031). Mini-abdominoplasty patients reported lower satisfaction with abdomen (59.47 ± 33.82 vs 69.82 ± 25.48; P = .158) and skin excess (74.13 ± 28.50 vs 83.23 ± 25.04; P = .157), but better outcomes in body contouring scars (73.25 ± 27.61 vs 64.56 ± 32.17; P = .232). Multivariate analysis confirmed higher score satisfaction with abdomen scale in the mini-inverted-T group (P < .028). Surgeons rated scar quality (6.94 ± 1.17 vs 5.51 ± 1.25, P < .001) and symmetry (6.44 ± 1.17 vs 5.42 ± 1.36, P < .001) higher for the mini-abdominoplasty group, while profile (6.72 ± 1.20 vs 8.23 ± 1.17, P < .001) and overall appearance (6.53 ± 1.07 vs 7.66 ± 1.07, P < .001) were rated higher for the mini-inverted-T group. Complications and revision rate did not differ statistically between the groups.

Conclusions

Both procedures are viable options for selected patients with advantages and limitations that should be discussed to align with patients’ characteristics and expectations. Mini-inverted-T scar abdominoplasty is recommended unless the patient is more concerned about scars rather than the overall abdominal shape and profile.

Level of Evidence

III.

Keywords

pregnancy cicatrix body contouring abdominoplasty abdomen patient satisfaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sperstad

Tennfjord

Hilde

Ellström-Engh

Bø

. Diastasis recti abdominis during pregnancy and 12 months after childbirth: prevalence, risk factors and report of lumbopelvic pain. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(17):1092–1096. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-096065

Matarasso

. Abdominoplasty: classic principles and technique. Clin Plast Surg. 2014;41(4):655–672. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2014.07.005

Fernandes

Damin

Holzmann

MVN

Ribas

GGO

. Use of an algorithm in choosing abdominoplasty techniques. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2018;45(2):e1394. Portuguese, English. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20181394

Hoyos

Perez

Mogollon

Arcila

. Decision-making algorithm for advanced excisional body contouring: dynamic definition solutions for skin laxity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(6):1248–1259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009740

Brunetti

Morelli Coppola

Ciarrocchi

Salzillo

Tenna

Persichetti

. “Thou shalt not throw away a living thing”: innovative use of perforator flaps in abdominal wall reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;150(3):672–676. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009450

Matarasso

. Traditional abdominoplasty. Clin Plast Surg. 2010;37(3):415–437. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2010.03.006

Greminger

. The mini-abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;79(3):356–365. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198703000-00006

Wilkinson

. Mini-abdominoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988;82(5):917–918. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-198811000-00042

Wan

Hubbard

Byrd

. Achieving aesthetic results in the umbilical float mini-abdominoplasty: patient selection and surgical technique. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(3):722–732. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005387

10.

Dardour

Vilain

. Alternatives to the classic abdominoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 1986;17(3):247–258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-198609000-00011

11.

Marangi

Segreto

Morelli Coppola

Arcari

Gratteri

Persichetti

. Management of chronic seromas: a novel surgical approach with the use of vacuum assisted closure therapy. Int Wound J. 2020;17(5):1153–1158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13447

12.

Barone

Cogliandro

Morelli Coppola

Persichetti

. The importance of patient satisfaction: a blessing, a curse, or simply irrelevant? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):362e–363e. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003538

13.

Barone

Cogliandro

Morelli Coppola

, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures following gynecomastia correction: a systematic review. Eur J Plast Surg. 2018;41(2):109–118. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-017-1375-y

14.

de Vries

CEE

Klassen

Hoogbergen

Alderman

Pusic

. Measuring outcomes in cosmetic abdominoplasty: the BODY-Q. Clin Plast Surg. 2020;47(3):429–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2020.03.003

15.

Kurt Yazar

Serin

. Comparison of aesthetic quality of the final scar in abdominoplasty with conventional and mini inverted t-scar. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019;55(5):142. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina55050142

16.

Sozer

Agullo

Santillan

Wolf

. Decision making in abdominoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31(2):117–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0148-y