A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

French

Background: The popularity of aesthetic surgery is on the rise, as is patients’ expectations towards excellent surgical results. In order to meet these expectations, risk factors that hinder desired outcomes, such as smoking, need to be identified and addressed. To that end, the present study summarizes an updated systematic review focused on the effects of smoking on cosmetic surgical procedures and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of studies comparing aesthetic surgical outcomes by procedure, between tobacco smokers and non-smokers was carried out, querying PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane databases. Data regarding surgical outcomes were extracted and meta-analyzed by a random effects model in conjunction with the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Results: Eighty-two studies were included in the final synthesis. Abdominoplasty/panniculectomy (n = 19 cohorts) and breast reduction (n = 27 cohorts) were the most common types of procedures included in this review. Other than mastopexy and rhinoplasty, smoking conferred a statistically significant increased risk of overall complications for all studied aesthetic procedures. Conclusions: The data demonstrates that smoking is a clear risk factor for the vast majority of aesthetic plastic surgeries studied. Although our meta-analysis suggests that smoking is not a risk factor for complications in mastopexies and rhinoplasties, these two specific analyses may have been biased, and should therefore be re-evaluated with future additional evidence. The results of this systematic review confirm the importance of smoking cessation and education relative to the outcomes of common cosmetic surgical procedures.

Keywords

aesthetic surgery complications Meta-analysis smoking

Background

With over 2.3 million cosmetic surgical procedures performed in the U.S. in 2020 alone, the exponential growth of the field in recent years is undeniable.¹ Given this rise in popularity and the elective nature of these procedures, plastic surgeons are increasingly striving to surpass the high expectations of their cosmetic surgery patients. One of the important determining factors of patient satisfaction is post-operative complications.² Therefore, surgeons adhere to standards of excellence and up-to-date guidelines with the hope of minimizing these complications.³

Minimizing the risk for complications becomes even more of a focus given that the aesthetic practice is based on solely elective procedures, and thus foreseeable complications should be avoided at all costs. One way to decrease the risk of complications is by meticulous patient selection and patient counselling regarding known risk factors.

Tobacco smoking remains one of the most cited risk factors for post-operative complications, and a major public health concern in general.^4–6 Aesthetic surgeons should therefore be able to have evidence-based discussions with their patients regarding the specific risks associated with smoking. However, due to the unfeasibility of running prospective trials and the exclusion of smokers in many studies for fear of complications, there is a lack of strong evidence regarding the specific effects of smoking on different types of aesthetic surgeries.⁷ While previous studies have assessed the effects of smoking on post-operative complications in cosmetic surgery,^8–12 their results have been limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous cohorts (including both reconstructive and cosmetic procedures) and a paucity of higher level of evidence studies.

To that end, the goal of this study is to systematically review and meta-analyze the literature to elucidate the impact of smoking on individual cosmetic surgical procedures. This data will help provide recommendations for pre-operative smoking cessation specific to a procedure, improve patient selection and ultimately provide the best surgical care for patients.

Materials and Methods

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines,¹³ a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane was conducted with the following search strategy, restricted to English: ([tobacco] OR [smok*]) AND ([breast augmentation] OR [breast reduction] OR [mastopexy] OR [mammoplasty] OR [lipofilling] OR [liposuction] OR [facelift] OR [rhytidectomy] OR [blepharoplasty] OR [rhinoplasty] OR [otoplasty] OR [arm lift] OR [thigh lift] OR [body contouring] OR [abdominoplasty]). Following duplicate removal, retained studies’ title and abstracts were screened, and then assessed in full text for eligibility according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. All studies for which raw numbers for surgical outcomes among cohorts of tobacco smokers and non-smokers could be isolated for a single type of aesthetic surgery were included. Exclusion criteria included non-aesthetic surgeries, studies with less than 10 patients, studies that did not stratify results based on procedure type or smoking status, and those that did not report surgical complications or only reported Odds Ratio (OR) with no raw data. All studies were assessed for level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria.¹⁴ This entire process was carried out independently between two authors and any discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Data regarding study type, qualitative conclusions and quantitative surgical outcomes between smoker and non-smoker cohorts were then extracted from the included studies. Patients were categorized as either smokers or non-smokers. If studies reported a cohort of previous smokers, we pooled them with the non-smoker group. Given that most primary studies reported on cohorts of smokers vs. non-smokers and that smoking status was largely self-reported, we favored the assumption that previous smokers at the exact time of data collection were likely reported as non-smokers. When not directly provided in the text, the overall complication rate was computed by pooling the complication(s) reported by the study in question.

Statistical Analysis

Studies were grouped by procedure, among which different types of surgical complications were also pooled. A meta-analysis of these, stratified by procedure and complication type, was conducted on Review Manager (RevMan) v5.4 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a random effects model was used in conjunction with the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method, in order to determine pooled OR.¹⁵ Of note, procedures with 3 or less cohorts were not meta-analyzed (but still reported in the systematic review) due to paucity of data which would render results of questionable power. Pooled OR estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Heterogeneity was computed using the chi-square test and formally quantified by the I² statistic. Although the effect in OR and confidence interval for each individual complication with enough data was calculated, the effect of the overall complication rate was further demonstrated using forest plots for each surgical category.

Results

Search Outcome

Following duplicate removal, 1794 initial studies were screened, leading to 217 being assessed in full for eligibility. An additional five studies were added to the full text review from manual search of relevant references. A total of 82 studies met our selection criteria and were included in this review ( Figure 1 ). Of note, some studies had cohorts for more than one procedure. The included studies were separated into 11 categories based on the performed surgery: breast reduction (n = 27 cohorts),^11,16–41 abdominoplasty & panniculectomy (n = 19 cohorts),^11,42–59 rhytidectomy (n = 10 cohorts),^11,60–68 breast augmentation (n = 9 cohorts),^{11,27,28,69–74} lower body lift (n = 8 cohorts),^{11,14,75–81} abdominal surgeries with concomitant procedures (n = 7 cohorts),^82–88 mastopexy & other breast procedures with concomitant mastopexy (n = 7 cohorts),^{11,26–28,89,90} rhinoplasty (n = 4 cohorts),^11,91–93 arm & thigh lift (n = 3 cohorts),^11,94 blepharoplasty (n = 2 cohorts)^11,95 and liposuction (n = 2 cohorts).^11,96 The majority of studies (n = 66/82) were of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level 2b, and all were level 4 or higher.¹⁴ Sixteen studies retrieved their data from databases (ie NSQIP, CosmetAssure, etc). The majority of studies (n = 49) were published in 2010 or later. Supplemental Digital Content 1 shows all the included studies, their level of evidence, and qualitative conclusions related to smoking.

Figure 1.

PRISMA Flow Chart for Systematic Review.

Body Contouring Surgery

Among the abdominoplasty & panniculectomy category, smoking was associated with an increased risk of overall complications (OR: 1.64 [1.44, 1.87] [p < 0.00001] ( Table 1 and Figure 2 ). With regards to specific complications, smoking was associated with an increased risk of infection [OR: 3.26 [1.33, 7.98], p = 0.01, delayed wound healing [OR: 2.94 [1.01, 8.60], p = 0.05], and reoperation rate [OR: 1.54 [1.09, 2.17], p = 0.01], ( Table 1 and Supplemental Digital Content 2). Similarly, among both the abdomen [with concomitant procedures] and the lower body lift category, smoking was associated with an increased overall complication rate [OR: 2.02 [1.16, 3.52] [p = 0.01] ( Table 1 , Figure 3 and Supplemental Digital Content 3) and 3.49 [1.67, 7.31] [p = 0.0009] ( Table 1 , Figure 4 and Supplemental Digital Content 4).

Figure 2.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Abdominoplasty & Panniculectomy studies.

Figure 3.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Abdomen (with concomitant procedures) studies.

Figure 4.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Lower Body Lift studies.

Table 1.

Summarized Outcomes from Meta-Analysis.

		Abdominoplasty/Panniculectomy	Abdominal (mixed)	Arm/Thigh Lift	Lower Body Lift	Breast Reduction	Breast Augmentation	Mastopexy (mixed breast)	Rhytidectomy	Rhinoplasty
Overall	OR [95% CI]	1.64 [1.44, 1.87]	2.02 [1.16, 3.52]	1.78 [0.16, 19.33]	3.49 [1.67, 7.31]	2.03 [1.57, 2.63]	1.52 [1.04, 2.22]	1.34 [0.55, 3.26]	2.99 [1.59, 5.60]	1.82 [0.76, 4.37]
	P	<0.00001	0.01	0.64	0.0009	<0.00001	0.03	0.52	0.0007	0.18
	I²	77%	74%	69%	65%	81%	78%	83%	76%	7%
Reoperation rate	OR [95% CI]	1.54 [1.09, 2.17]	1.39 [0.38, 5.11]	-	-	1.58 [1.08, 2.32]	-	-	-	-
	P	0.01	0.62	-	-	0.02	-	-	-	-
	I²	0%	36%	-	-	32%	-	-	-	-
Infection	OR [95% CI]	3.26 [1.33, 7.98]	-	-	-	2.01 [1.60, 2.54]	-	2.00 [0.82, 4.87]	-	-
	P	0.01	-	-	-	<0.00001	-	0.13	-	-
	I²	66%	-	-	-	24%	-	0%	-	-
Dehiscence	OR [95% CI]	2.26 [0.96, 5.32]	-	-	3.72 [0.83, 16.77]	2.74 [1.97, 3.79]	-	-	-	-
	P	0.06	-	-	0.09	<0.00001	-	-	-	-
	I²	45%	-	-	56%	17%	-	-	-	-
Skin Necrosis	OR [95% CI]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	10.29 [5.83, 18.17]	-
	P	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	<0.00001	-
	I²	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3%	-
Delayed wound healing	OR [95% CI]	2.94 [1.01, 8.60]	-	-	-	1.41 [0.67, 2.98]	-	-	-	-
	P	0.05	-	-	-	0.37	-	-	-	-
	I²	77%	-	-	-	53%	-	-	-	-
Seroma	OR [95% CI]	1.51 [0.93, 2.44]	-	-	3.15 [0.53, 18.68]	-	-	2.43 [0.84, 6.98]	-	-
	P	0.09	-	-	0.21	-	-	0.1	-	-
	I²	0%	-	-	61%	-	-	0%	-	-
Hematoma	OR [95% CI]	-	-	-	-	1.35 [0.47, 3.94]	-	-	1.90 [1.07, 3.36]	-
	P	-	-	-	-	0.58	-	-	0.03	-
	I²	-	-	-	-	0%	-	-	0%	-
Capsular Contracture	OR [95% CI]	-	-	-	-	-	1.83 [0.86, 3.90]	-	-	-
	P	-	-	-	-	-	0.12	-	-	-
	I²	-	-	-	-	-	69%	-	-	-
NAC Necrosis	OR [95% CI]	-	-	-	-	2.13 [0.33, 13.58]	-	-	-	-
	P	-	-	-	-	0.42	-	-	-	-
	I²	-	-	-	-	15%	-	-	-	-
DVT/PE	OR [95% CI]	-	-	-	-	0.53 [0.12, 2.27]	-	-	-	-
	P	-	-	-	-	0.39	-	-	-	-
	I²	-	-	-	-	0%	-	-	-	-

Breast Surgery

In the breast reduction category, smoking was associated with an increased risk of overall complications (OR: 2.03 [1.57, 2.63] [p < 0.00001]) ( Table 1 and Figure 5 ). In terms of specific complications, smoking was associated with an increased rate of infection (OR: 2.01 [1.60, 2.54], p < 0.00001), wound dehiscence (OR: 2.74 [1.97, 3.79], p < 0.00001), and reoperation rate (OR: 1.58 [1.08, 2.32], p = 0.02) ( Table 1 and Supplemental Digital Content 5).

Figure 5.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Breast Reduction studies.

Similarly, smoking in breast augmentation was associated with an increased risk of overall complications (OR: 1.52 [1.04, 2.22] [p = 0.03] but not an increase in any specific complication ( Table 1 , Figure 6 and Supplemental Digital Content 6). Finally, smoking in patients undergoing mastopexy was not associated with an increased overall complication risk [OR: 2.00 [0.82, 4.87] [p = 0.13] ( Table 1 and Figure 7 ), nor any specific complication [p > 0.05] ( Table 1 and Supplemental Digital Content 7).

Figure 6.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Breast Augmentation studies.

Figure 7.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Mastopexy (& other breast procedures with concomitant mastopexy) studies.

Facial Surgery

Among patients undergoing a rhytidectomy, smoking was associated with an increased risk of total complications (OR: 2.99 [1.59, 5.60] [p = 0.0007] ( Table 1 and Figure 8 ). With regards to specific complications, smoking was associated with a significantly increased risk of skin necrosis [OR: 10.29 [5.83, 18.17], p < 0.00001] and hematoma [OR: 1.90 [1.07, 3.36], p = 0.03] ( Table 1 and Supplemental Digital Content 8). On the other hand, smoking was not associated with an increased risk of overall complication in patients undergoing rhinoplasty [OR: 1.82 [0.76, 4.37], p = 0.18] ( Table 1 and Figure 9 ). No other OR were computed for this category due to paucity of data (Table 2 and Supplemental Digital Content 9).

Figure 8.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Rhytidectomy studies.

Figure 9.

Forest Plot for Overall Complicate Rate in Rhinoplasty studies.

Discussion

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that smoking is associated with higher odds of incurring overall surgical complications across most of the aesthetic surgical procedures studied (abdominoplasty, lower body lift, breast reductions, breast augmentation, and rhytidectomy). However, among patients undergoing mastopexy or rhinoplasty, our review demonstrated no association between smoking and an increased risk of complications.

The underlying pathophysiology of smoking in surgical patients relies on the reduction in tissue perfusion, the impairment of inflammatory cell functions, and the attenuation of reparative cell functions.⁹⁷ Mainly through catecholamine release and activation of the Thromboxane A₂ pathway, nicotine and nitric oxide promote vasoconstriction and thus decrease tissue perfusion.^98,99 Simultaneously, tobacco smoke toxins cause an impairment in neutrophil and monocyte-macrophage activity, and promote the release of reactive oxygen species, which are detrimental to the wound healing pathway.^97,100,101 However, previous studies have shown that reversal of cellular damage can be observed after three weeks of abstention.¹⁰⁰ Therefore, aesthetic surgeons should strive to provide adequate smoking cessation support and education to all of their pre-operative patients, mainly through behavioral support and nicotine replacement therapy, especially since Van Slyke et. al.¹⁰² have shown that enforcing smoking cessation before cosmetic surgery may promote long lasting smoking cessation.¹⁰³

Not only was smoking associated with a higher rate of complications in the majority of aesthetic surgeries studied, but it was also associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperation in abdominoplasty/panniculectomy, as well as following breast reduction surgery. This is in line with previous literature where smoking was found to be associated with higher rates of reoperation in other surgical domains.^104,105 Although this may be true for other cosmetic procedures included in the present study, the authors could not investigate re-operation risk for the other procedures due to the paucity of data.

Interestingly, the two types of surgeries that did not show a significant association between smoking and increased rate of complications were mastopexy and rhinoplasty. A closer analysis of our rhinoplasty cohort demonstrates that most complications reported by Irvine et al.⁹² (OR = 0.59 [0.08, 4.53]) occurred in former smokers, and these were pooled with the non-smoker group as per our protocol, which could have contributed to the lack of statistical significance between our two studied groups. As per our meta-analysis, mastopexy does not seem to confer an added risk among smokers. However, theoretically this is counterintuitive as the added incisional wounds from a mastopexy result in a decreased dermal blood supply, a phenomenon which is exacerbated by the known vasoconstrictive effects of tobacco smoking.^98,106 Therefore, this led the authors to suspect a source of bias in this cohort. A closer look of the primary studies revealed that only two primary studies^11,27 comprised the majority of patients (79.8%) in this cohort, and thus weighed heavily on the meta-analysis. Both studies explained the lack of association between smoking and complications through a pre-selection bias, suggesting that surgeons may have refused surgery for the heavier smokers pre-operatively. Therefore, “light” smokers were compared to non-smokers, which may have contributed to the lack of difference in complications between both groups.

Limitations and Future Directions

This review is not without limitations, mainly due to the inherent heterogeneity of the included studies. Considering only a few studies reported numbers for previous smokers, for the statistical purposes, the authors pooled previous smokers with the non-smoker categories, as most other studies relied on self-reported smoking status at the time of their respective data collection. To add to this, most studies did not report their definition of non-smokers, or had varying timelines for what they considered a “non-smoker”. The authors also could not account for the heterogeneity in techniques utilized for different cosmetic procedures (eg different breast reduction pedicles, different planes for face lifts etc), which may have introduced another source of bias into the results. This heterogeneity is reflected in the high I2 values seen in our results, despite being mitigated by using random effects modelling in our analysis. Considering the time and dose-dependent nature of the effect of smoking, and that certain studies demonstrated differing risks among former and non-smokers, the authors believe future studies should report numbers of former smokers and indicate their amount/time of consumption. Moreover, future studies should better characterize the effects of smoking on mastopexy and rhinoplasty. Finally, other than scarring and capsular contracture, there is a lack of reporting on aesthetic outcomes between smokers and non-smokers, which would be interesting to compare in future studies.

Conclusion

Despite the overall reduction in smoking habits in the last few decades, smoking remains a major risk factor across the board for cosmetic surgery patients. This is especially true for reoperation rates in abdominoplasty, infection and dehiscence in breast reduction, and skin necrosis and hematoma in rhytidectomy. Conversely, more research is needed to accurately quantify the risk of smoking on complications in rhinoplasty and mastopexy. The authors hope that due to the paucity of large, prospective trials, the results demonstrated in this meta-analysis can be used to better counsel patients pre-operatively, better stratify post-operative risk for developing specific complications, and ultimately improve the process of informed consent between aesthetic surgeons and their patients.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-5-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-6-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-6-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-7-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-7-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-8-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-8-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-9-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 - Supplemental material for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-9-psg-10.1177_22925503221085083 for A Procedure and Complication-Specific Assessment of Smoking in Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Gabriel Bouhadana, Hassan ElHawary, Peter Alam and Mirko S. Gilardino in Plastic Surgery

Footnotes

Author Contributions

G.B. and H.E. contributed to the design of the research, analysis of the results and writing of the manuscript. M.G. contributed to the editing of the manuscript and supervision of the project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Gabriel Bouhadana

Hassan ElHawary

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

American Society of Plastic Surgeons - Cosmetic Surgery Statistics. 2020. Available at: https://wwwplasticsurgeryorg/documents/News/Statistics/2020/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2020pdf Accessed on September 5th, 2021.

Myles

Williams

Hendrata

Anderson

Weeks

. Patient satisfaction after anaesthesia and surgery: results of a prospective survey of 10,811 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(1):6‐10. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013383

ElHawary

Hintermayer

Alam

Brunetti

Janis

. Decreasing surgical site infections in plastic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level 1 evidence. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(7):Np948‐np958. doi:10.1093/asj/sjab119

Sørensen

. Wound healing and infection in surgery: the clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):373‐383.

Mills

Eyawo

Lockhart

Kelly

Ebbert

. Smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2011;124(2):144‐154.e8. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.09.013

World Health Organization. Tobacco Available at: https://wwwwhoint/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco Accessed on: September 23rd 2021.

Rohrich

Coberly

Krueger

Brown

Gorney

. Planning elective operations on patients who smoke: survey of north American plastic surgeons. Note. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(1):356‐357. doi:10.1097/00006534-200201000-00057

Pluvy

Panouillères

Garrido

, et al. Smoking and plastic surgery, part II. Clinical implications: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2015;60(1):e15‐e49. doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2014.09.011

Sieffert

Johnson

Fox

. Added healthcare charges conferred by smoking in outpatient plastic surgery. Aesthetic Surg J. 2018;38(8):892‐899. doi:10.1093/asj/sjx231

10.

Coon

Tuffaha

Christensen

Bonawitz

. Plastic surgery and smoking: a prospective analysis of incidence, compliance, and complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(2):385‐391. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318277886a

11.

Kaoutzanis

Winocour

Gupta

, et al. The effect of smoking in the cosmetic surgery population: analysis of 129,007 patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(1):109‐119. doi:10.1093/asj/sjy088

12.

Theocharidis

Katsaros

Sgouromallis

, et al. Current evidence on the role of smoking in plastic surgery elective procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(5):624‐636. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2018.01.011

13.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J. 2021;372:n71. Published 2021 Mar 29. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

14.

CEBM (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine). 2009. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine—Levels of Evidence (March 2009) http://www.cebmnet/indexaspx?o=1025 (accessed September 5, 2021).

15.

Poole

Greenland

. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150(5):469‐475. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010035

16.

Aravind

Siotos

Bernatowicz

Cooney

Rosson

. Breast reduction in adults: identifying risk factors for overall 30-Day postoperative complications. Aesthet Surg J. 2020;40(12):Np676‐np685. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaa146

17.

Baltodano

Reinhardt

Ata

Simjee

Roth

Patel

. The Baltodano breast reduction score: a nationwide, multi-institutional, validated approach to reducing surgical-site morbidity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(2):258e‐264e. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003506

18.

Bartsch

Weiss

Kästenbauer

, et al. Crucial aspects of smoking in wound healing after breast reduction surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(9):1045‐1049. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2006.08.001

19.

Bikhchandani

Varma

Henderson

. Is it justified to refuse breast reduction to smokers? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60(9):1050‐1054. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2007.01.073

20.

Chan

Withey

Butler

. Smoking and wound healing problems in reduction mammaplasty: is the introduction of urine nicotine testing justified? Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56(2):111‐115. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000197635.26473.a2

21.

Cunningham

Gear

Kerrigan

Collins

. Analysis of breast reduction complications derived from the BRAVO study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(6):1597‐1604. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000160695.33457.db

22.

Davé

Arora

Zeiderman

Wong

. Geriatric patients carry increased risk for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in reduction mammaplasty: an analysis of 1897 geriatric patients Among 25,909 cases From 2005 to 2017 national surgical quality improvement project databases. Ann Plast Surg. 2020;84(5S Suppl 4):S264‐s267. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002242

23.

Deliaert

Van den Kerckhove

Tuinder

Noordzij

Dormaar

van der Hulst

. Smoking and its effect on scar healing. Eur J Plast Surg. 2012;35(6):421‐424. doi:10.1007/s00238-011-0661-3

24.

Fernandez

Coady

Cohen-Shohet

Molas-Pierson

Mast

. Comparative outcomes and quality analysis of inverted-T and pure vertical scar techniques in superomedial pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76(Suppl 4):S328‐S331. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000732

25.

Fischer

Cleveland

Shang

Nelson

Serletti

. Complications following reduction mammaplasty: a review of 3538 cases from the 2005-2010 NSQIP data sets. Aesthet Surg J. 2014;34(1):66‐73. doi:10.1177/1090820x13515676

26.

Gravante

Araco

Sorge

, et al. Postoperative wound infections after breast reductions: the role of smoking and the amount of tissue removed. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(1):25‐31. doi:10.1007/s00266-007-9048-z

27.

Hanemann MS

Grotting

. Evaluation of preoperative risk factors and complication rates in cosmetic breast surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64(5):537‐540. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181cdabf8

28.

Hanwright

Hirsch

Seth

, et al. A multi-institutional perspective of complication rates for elective nonreconstructive breast surgery: an analysis of NSQIP data from 2006 to 2010. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(3):378‐386. doi:10.1177/1090820x13478819

29.

Hillam

Borsting

Chim

Thaller

. Smoking as a risk factor for breast reduction: an analysis of 13,503 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017;70(6):734‐740. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2016.12.012

30.

Karamanos

Wei

Siddiqui

Rubinfeld

. Tobacco Use and body mass Index as predictors of outcomes in patients undergoing breast reduction mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75(4):383‐387. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000192

31.

O'Grady

Thoma

Dal Cin

. A comparison of complication rates in large and small inferior pedicle reduction mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(3):736‐742. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000152428.43300.19

32.

Roehl

Craig

Gómez

Phillips

. Breast reduction: safe in the morbidly obese? Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(2):370‐378. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31817d60f4

33.

Rubio

Zoghbi

Karcutskie

Thaller

. Incidence and risk factors for venous thromboembolism in bilateral breast reduction surgery: an analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 2017;70(11):1514‐1519. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2017.05.050

34.

Schumacher

. Breast reduction and smoking. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(2):117‐119. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000146878.14207.9d

35.

Serletti

Davenport

Herrera

Caldwell

. Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in reduction mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;33(5):476‐480. doi:10.1097/00000637-199411000-00003

36.

Simpson

Donato

Kwok

Agarwal

. Predictors of complications following breast reduction surgery: a national surgical quality improvement program study of 16,812 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(1):43‐51. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2018.09.002

37.

Srinivasaiah

Iwuchukwu

Stanley

Hart

Platt

Drew

. Risk factors for complications following breast reduction: results from a randomized control trial. Breast J. 2014;20(3):274‐278. doi:10.1111/tbj.12256

38.

Stevens

Gear

Stoker

, et al. Outpatient reduction mammaplasty: an eleven-year experience. Aesthet Surg J. 2008;28(2):171‐179. doi:10.1016/j.asj.2008.01.001

39.

Toplu

Altınel

Serin

. Evaluation of factors related to postoperative complications in patients Who underwent reduction mammoplasty. Eur J Breast Health. 2021;17(2):157‐164. doi:10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6336

40.

Wirthmann

Welsch

Wellenbrock

, et al. Reduction mammoplasty in adolescents and elderly: a ten year case series analyzing age related outcome with focus on safety and complications. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(3):377‐383. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2017.08.026

41.

Young

Herrera

. National surgical quality improvement program analysis of 9110 reduction mammaplasty patients: identifying risk factors associated With complications in patients older than 60 years. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82(6S Suppl 5):S446‐s449. doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000001804

42.

Araco

Gravante

Sorge

Araco

Delogu

Cervelli

. Wound infections in aesthetic abdominoplasties: the role of smoking. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(5):305e‐310e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31816b13c2

43.

Barcha

Ranzer

. Smoking as a risk factor for panniculectomy: an analysis of 7650 cases. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71(5):767‐769. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2017.12.014

44.

Batchvarova

Leymarie

Lepage

Leyder

. Use of a submuscular resorbable mesh for correction of severe postpregnancy musculoaponeurotic laxity: an 11-year retrospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(4):1240‐1248. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000302456.02109.04

45.

Champaneria

Workman

Pham

Adetayo

Gupta

. Retrospective analysis of never events in panniculectomy and abdominoplasty patients and their financial implications. Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(4):412‐415. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827fb36b

46.

Delaunay

Coquerel-Beghin

Magalon

, et al. A preoperative cotininury test for abdominoplasty reduces peri-operative complications. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2018;63(4):307‐315. doi:10.1016/j.anplas.2018.03.004

47.

Duff

Aslam

Griffiths

. Fleur-de-Lys abdominoplasty–a consecutive case series. Br J Plast Surg. 2003;56(6):557‐566. doi:10.1016/s0007-1226(03)00174-7

48.

Fraccalvieri

Datta

Bogetti

, et al. Abdominoplasty after weight loss in morbidly obese patients: a 4-year clinical experience. Obes Surg. 2007;17(10):1319‐1324. doi:10.1007/s11695-007-9235-7

49.

Gravante

Araco

Sorge

Araco

Delogu

Cervelli

. Wound infections in post-bariatric patients undergoing body contouring abdominoplasty: the role of smoking. Obes Surg. 2007;17(10):1325‐1331. doi:10.1007/s11695-007-9236-6

50.

Helle

Salmi

Saariniemi

Kuokkanen

. Tension suture technique combined with lidocain-adrenalin-saline-infiltration decreases complications in abdominoplasty. Scand J Surg. 2012;101(4):297‐300. doi:10.1177/145749691210100414

51.

Manassa

Hertl

Olbrisch

. Wound healing problems in smokers and nonsmokers after 132 abdominoplasties. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(6):2082‐2087; discussion 2088-9. doi:10.1097/01.Prs.0000057144.62727.C8

52.

Momeni

Heier

Bannasch

Stark

. Complications in abdominoplasty: a risk factor analysis. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62(10):1250‐1254. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2008.03.043

53.

Neaman

Hansen

. Analysis of complications from abdominoplasty: a review of 206 cases at a university hospital. Ann Plast Surg. 2007;58(3):292‐298. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000239806.43438.54

54.

Neaman

Armstrong

Baca

Albert

Vander Woude

Renucci

. Outcomes of traditional cosmetic abdominoplasty in a community setting: a retrospective analysis of 1008 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(3):403e‐410e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31827c6fc3

55.

Rogliani

Gentile

Silvi

Labardi

Cervelli

. Abdominal dermolipectomy: risks and complications in smokers treated from 2004 to October of 2006. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(2):85e‐86e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31817d65b5

56.

Schlosshauer

Kiehlmann

Jung

Sader

Rieger

. Post-Bariatric abdominoplasty: analysis of 406 cases With focus on risk factors and complications. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41(1):59‐71. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaa067

57.

Stewart

Coghlan

Harrison

Jones

Waterhouse

. Complications of 278 consecutive abdominoplasties. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59(11):1152‐1155. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2005.12.060

58.

van Uchelen

Werker

Kon

. Complications of abdominoplasty in 86 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(7):1869‐1873. doi:10.1097/00006534-200106000-00037

59.

Ellis

Blough

Gutowski

Kim

JYS

. Development and internal validation of the abdominoplasty risk calculator. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141(1):34e‐45e. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003922

60.

Berry

Stanek

. Fibrin tissue adhesive for face- and necklift. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68(10):1325‐1331. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2015.06.021

61.

Chopan

Samant

Mast

. Contemporary analysis of rhytidectomy using the tracking operations and outcomes for plastic surgeons database with 13,346 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020;145(6):1402‐1408. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000006813

62.

Frojo

Dotson

Christopher

Kaswan

Lund

. Facelift performed safely With local anesthesia and oral sedation: analysis of 174 patients. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(5):463‐469. doi:10.1093/asj/sjy202

63.

Grover

Jones

Waterhouse

. The prevention of haematoma following rhytidectomy: a review of 1078 consecutive facelifts. Br J Plast Surg. 2001;54(6):481‐486. doi:10.1054/bjps.2001.3623

64.

Maricevich

Adair

Maricevich

Kashyap

Jacobson

. Facelift complications related to median and peak blood pressure evaluation. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38(4):641‐647. doi:10.1007/s00266-014-0353-z

65.

Parikh

Jacono

. Deep-plane face-lift as an alternative in the smoking patient. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2011;13(4):283‐285. doi:10.1001/archfacial.2011.39

66.

Rees

Liverett

Guy

. The effect of cigarette smoking on skin-flap survival in the face lift patient. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1984;73(6):911‐915. doi:10.1097/00006534-198406000-00009

67.

Riefkohl

Wolfe

Cox

McCarty

Jr . Association between cutaneous occlusive vascular disease, cigarette smoking, and skin slough after rhytidectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77(4):592‐595. doi:10.1097/00006534-198604000-00013

68.

Webster

Kazda

Hamdan

Fuleihan

Smith

. Cigarette smoking and face lift: conservative versus wide undermining. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77(4):596‐602.

69.

Blount

Martin

Lineberry

Kettaneh

Alfonso

. Capsular contracture rate in a low-risk population after primary augmentation mammaplasty. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(4):516‐521. doi:10.1177/1090820x13484465

70.

Collis

Coleman

Foo

ITH

Sharpe

. Ten-year review of a prospective randomized controlled trial of textured versus smooth subglandular silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;106(4):786‐791. doi:10.1097/00006534-200009020-00005

71.

Dancey

Nassimizadeh

Levick

. Capsular contracture - what are the risk factors? A 14 year series of 1400 consecutive augmentations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012;65(2):213‐218. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2011.09.011

72.

Fryzek

Signorello

Hakelius

, et al. Local complications and subsequent symptom reporting among women with cosmetic breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(1):214‐221. doi:10.1097/00006534-200101000-00035

73.

Sforza

Husein

Atkinson

Zaccheddu

. Unraveling factors influencing early seroma formation in breast augmentation surgery. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(3):301‐307. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw196

74.

Valente

Zanella

Doncatto

Padoin

. Incidence and risk factors of striae distensae following breast augmentation surgery: a cohort study. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97493. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097493

75.

Bertheuil

Bergeat

Berkane

Carloni

Gandolfi

Duisit

. Lipo-Bodylift reconstruction following massive weight loss: our experience with 100 consecutive cases. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021;45(5):2220–2228. doi:10.1007/s00266-020-02118-x

76.

Bertheuil

Chaput

De Runz

Girard

Carloni

Watier

. The lipo-body lift: a New circumferential body-contouring technique useful after bariatric surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(1):38e‐49e. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000002926

77.

De Runz

Brix

Gisquet

, et al. Satisfaction and complications after lower body lift with autologous gluteal augmentation by island fat flap: 55 case series over 3 years. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery. 2015;68(3):410‐418. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2014.10.043

78.

Dini

Mori

Cassi

Lo Russo

Lucchese

. Circumferential abdominoplasty. Obes Surg. 2008;18(11):1392‐1399. doi:10.1007/s11695-008-9498-7

79.

Losco

Roxo

, et al. Lower body lift after bariatric surgery: 323 consecutive cases over 10-year experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020;44(2):421‐432. doi:10.1007/s00266-019-01543-x

80.

Nemerofsky

Oliak

Capella

. Body lift: an account of 200 consecutive cases in the massive weight loss patient. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(2):414‐430. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000197524.18233.bb

81.

van Huizum

Roche

Hofer

. Circular belt lipectomy: a retrospective follow-up study on perioperative complications and cosmetic outcome. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(5):459‐464; discussion 465-6. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000155275.76486.ca

82.

Bunting

Shang

Kenkel

. Vertical abdominoplasty technique and the impact of preoperative comorbidities on outcomes. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2021;3(1):ojaa043. doi:10.1093/asjof/ojaa043

83.

De Paep

Van Campenhout

Van Cauwenberge

Dillemans

. Post-bariatric abdominoplasty: identification of risk factors for complications. Obes Surg. 2021;31(7):3203‐3209. doi:10.1007/s11695-021-05383-0

84.

Debs

Petrucciani

Frey

, et al. Outcomes of patients older than 55 years undergoing abdominoplasty after bariatric surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2021;17(5):901‐908. doi:10.1016/j.soard.2021.01.009

85.

Fischer

Basta

Wink

Wes

Kovach

. Optimizing patient selection in ventral hernia repair with concurrent panniculectomy: an analysis of 1974 patients from the ACS-NSQIP datasets. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(11):1532‐1540. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2014.07.001

86.

Morandi

Ploner

Wolfram

, et al. Risk factors and complications after body-contouring surgery and the amount of stromal vascular fraction cells found in subcutaneous tissue. Int Wound J. 2019;16(6):1545‐1552. doi:10.1111/iwj.13245

87.

Romano

Zoccali

Orsini

Giuliani

. Reducing complications in post-bariatric plastic surgery: our experience and literature review. Acta Biomed. 2019;90(4):475‐481. doi:10.23750/abm.v90i4.7405

88.

Stevens

Repta

Pacella

, et al. Safe and consistent outcomes of successfully combining breast surgery and abdominoplasty: an update. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(2):129‐134. doi:10.1016/j.asj.2008.12.002

89.

Azzam

De Mey

. Vertical scar mammaplasty in gigantomastia: retrospective study of 115 patients treated using the modified lejour technique. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31(3):294‐298. doi:10.1007/s00266-006-0227-0

90.

Messa

. One-Stage augmentation mastopexy: a retrospective Ten-year review of 2183 consecutive procedures. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(12):1352‐1367. doi:10.1093/asj/sjz143

91.

Andrews

Jones

Moody

, et al. Nasoseptal surgery outcomes in smokers and nonsmokers. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2021;23(4):283‐288. doi:10.1089/fpsam.2020.0349

92.

Irvine

Azizzadeh

Kerulos

Nassif

. Outcomes of a treatment protocol for compromised nasal skin in primary and revision open rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med. 2021;23(2):118‐125. doi:10.1089/fpsam.2020.0181

93.

Yoo

Peng

Azizzadeh

Nassif

. Microbiology and antibiotic prophylaxis in rhinoplasty: a review of 363 consecutive cases. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2015;17(1):23‐27. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2014.1021

94.

Özkaya

Yasak

. Vertical medial thigh lift with the ‘anchor L liposculpture’ technique in massive weight loss patients: preliminary results. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;46(1):276–286. doi:10.1007/s00266-021-02394-1

95.

Matiasek

Kienzl

Otti

Turk

Djedovic

Rieger

. Aseptic surgical preparation for upper eyelid blepharoplasty via full-face octenidine antiseptic without antibiotic medication shows effective prophylaxis against post-surgical wound infection. Int Wound J. 2018;15(1):84‐89. doi:10.1111/iwj.12837

96.

Kaoutzanis

Gupta

Winocour

, et al. Cosmetic liposuction: preoperative risk factors, Major complication rates, and safety of combined procedures. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(6):680‐694. doi:10.1093/asj/sjw243

97.

Sørensen

. Wound healing and infection in surgery: the pathophysiological impact of smoking, smoking cessation, and nicotine replacement therapy: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2012;255(6):1069‐1079. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824f632d

98.

Dattilo

Makhoul

. The role of nitric oxide in vascular biology and pathobiology. Ann Vasc Surg. 1997;11(3):307‐314.

99.

Lelcuk

Threlfall

Valeri

Shepro

Hechtman

. Nicotine stimulates pulmonary parenchymal thromboxane synthesis. Surgery. 1986;100(5):836‐840.

100.

Sørensen

Nielsen

Kharazmi

Gottrup

. Effect of smoking and abstention on oxidative burst and reactivity of neutrophils and monocytes. Surgery. 2004;136(5):1047‐1053. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2004.04.001

101.

Ryder

Fujitaki

Johnson

Hyun

. Alterations of neutrophil oxidative burst by in vitro smoke exposure: implications for oral and systemic diseases. Ann Periodontol. 1998;3(1):76‐87. doi:10.1902/annals.1998.3.1.76

102.

Van Slyke

Carr

Knox

ADC

Genoway

Carr

. Perioperative and long-term smoking behaviors in cosmetic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140(3):503‐509. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003604

103.

Thomsen

Villebro

Møller

. Interventions for preoperative smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(3):Cd002294. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002294.pub4

104.

Tischler

Matsen Ko

Chen

Maltenfort

Schroeder

Austin

. Smoking increases the rate of reoperation for infection within 90 days after primary total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(4):295‐304. doi:10.2106/jbjs.16.00311

105.

Reese

Paciotti

, et al. Risk factors and reasons for reoperation after radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(4):269‐277. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.10.011

106.

Spear

. Augmentation/mastopexy: “surgeon, beware”. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(3):905‐906. doi:10.1097/01.Prs.0000072257.66189.3e

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

1.82 MB

1.77 MB

1.84 MB

1.78 MB

1.77 MB

1.78 MB

1.77 MB