Ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty.

BACKGROUND Ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty (UAL) has been associated with particular types of complications and uncertain long-term effects arising from interactions between ultrasonic energy and living tissue. The present review seeks to address these issues. METHODS Search strategy Three search strategies were devised to retrieve literature from Medline, Current Contents, Embase and Cochrane Library databases up until April 2000. Study selection Inclusion of papers was largely determined using a predetermined protocol. English language papers were selected. Acceptable study designs included randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series or case reports. Data collection and analysis Thirty-six papers met the inclusion criteria. They were tabulated and critically appraised in terms of methodology and design, outcomes, and the possible influence of bias, confounding and chance. Other papers were also included to provide background material. RESULTS There was little high-level evidence available comparing UAL and suction-assisted lipoplasty (SAL), with no conclusive evidence that UAL has a safety benefit, although low-quality evidence suggests that UAL is associated with reduced surgeon fatigue as well as increased operating times, slower aspiration rates and an increased learning curve. There is inadequate evidence to determine whether the theoretical potential for DNA damage from ultrasound is realized in the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS The evidence base for UAL is inadequate to determine the procedure's safety and efficacy. The potential for DNA damage must be investigated with appropriate in vivo animal models. Recommendations for the safe use of UAL are discussed.