> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theplasticsfella.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Body Contouring Assessment: Patient Selection, Examination, & Treatment Planning - URL: https://www.theplasticsfella.com/body-contouring-assessment/ - Published: 2026-11-02T08:08:43.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-02T08:08:43.000Z - Description: Body contouring assessment identifies deformities, patient suitability, and realistic goals for corrective surgery. - Author: PlasticsFella - Tags: Cosmetic, Aesthetic [****Treatment Boundaries**](#treatment-boundaries) Body contouring assessment must define the dominant deformity, patient suitability, realistic goals, weight stability, and whether the problem needs excision, abdominal wall repair, liposuction, non-invasive treatment, staging, or deferral. [****Medical Suitability**](#medical-suitability) Optimise comorbidities, smoking, nutrition, VTE risk, medications including GLP-1 receptor agonists, and stable weight for at least 6 months before body contouring surgery. [****Regional Examination**](#regional-examination) Examine all affected regions systematically to identify the dominant problem: skin excess, adiposity, scars, hernia, diastasis recti, asymmetry, skin quality, and adjacent untreated laxity. [****Psychosocial Assessment**](#psychosocial-assessment) Assess motivation, expectations, body image distress, readiness for staged surgery, support systems, and the need for psychological assessment or support in selected patients. [****Treatment Selection**](#treatment-selection) Translate assessment into treatment by matching the dominant deformity and patient risk to excision, liposuction, abdominal wall repair, non-invasive treatment, staging, or deferral. [****Scar Planning and Documentation**](#scar-planning-and-documentation) Body contouring assessment must include standardised photography, scar planning, visibility trade-offs, previous scar mapping, and documentation of possible scars during consent. [****Complications and Safety Counselling**](#complications-and-safety-counselling) Assessment-focused counselling should mention major early risks, late contour and scar problems, lymphatic complications, and revision risk, with extra caution in higher-risk patients. [****Outcomes and Follow-Up Assessment**](#outcomes-and-follow-up-assessment) Follow-up assessment should confirm wound healing, patient satisfaction, goal achievement, readiness for staged surgery, and durability of the contour relative to weight change and recurrent laxity. --- ## Treatment Boundaries ****Key Point** Body contouring assessment must define the dominant deformity, patient suitability, realistic goals, weight stability, and whether the problem needs excision, abdominal wall repair, liposuction, non-invasive treatment, staging, or deferral. Body contouring is not a procedure-first consultation. Body contouring surgery includes a wide range of procedures aimed at correcting congenital or acquired deformities of body shape and soft tissue. A safe assessment separates excess skin, subcutaneous adiposity, fascial laxity, hernia, scars, and patient expectations before any operation is offered. ### Patient Selection Careful patient selection and realistic goal setting are the basis of an appropriate body contouring indication. - **Target deformity:** identify whether the concern is skin excess, fat excess, abdominal bulge, ptosis, asymmetry, or contour irregularity. - **Weight trajectory:** confirm that weight loss has plateaued and that the planned contour is unlikely to be invalidated by further major change. - **Open discussion:** treatment boundaries should be set through history, examination, and direct preoperative discussion with the patient [1](#ref-1). - **Treatment refusal:** defer when risk is high, expectations are unrealistic, or the requested result is anatomically unsafe. ### Deformity Analysis Match the proposed treatment to the anatomical problem rather than to the patient’s preferred operation. - **Skin excess:** requires excision when redundant skin is the dominant issue. - **Localised adiposity:** may suit liposuction or selected non-invasive spot reduction if skin recoil is adequate. - **Abdominal wall laxity:** may need rectus abdominis plication when diastasis recti contributes to bulging. - **Hernia:** requires hernia assessment and may change operative planning beyond aesthetic contouring. ![Cross-sectional illustrations comparing subcutaneous adiposity, visceral fullness, rectus diastasis, and ventral or incisional hernia, highlighting the anatomical differences relevant to diagnosis and treatment planning.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/10/Template--11--1.png) Comparing subcutaneous adiposity, visceral fullness, rectus diastasis, and ventral or incisional hernia. ### Non-Operative Boundaries Non-invasive treatments are limited contouring tools and should not be presented as substitutes for excisional reshaping. - **Mild laxity:** mild abdominal laxity or preference to avoid major surgery may fit non-invasive treatment, while moderate-to-severe laxity should prompt discussion of surgical options [2](#ref-2). - **RF-HIFEM:** radiofrequency and high-intensity focused electromagnetic energy can be discussed as a non-invasive option for improving muscle tone and/or reducing fat, not as excisional body contouring [3](#ref-3). - **Cryolipolysis:** frame as nonsurgical spot reduction for modest localised adiposity, not larger-volume surgical reshaping [4](#ref-4). - **Device counselling:** discuss approval status, expected side effects, and typical treatment protocols before offering non-invasive treatment. ### Condition-Specific Boundaries Some contour concerns require disease-specific counselling before aesthetic planning. - **Lipedema:** liposuction should be framed after conservative therapies fail, rather than as first-line care [6](#ref-6). - **HIFU:** high-intensity focused ultrasound may be discussed for nonsurgical contour change, but settings and ideal candidates are not yet standardised [7](#ref-7). - **Heterogeneous abdomens:** avoid a single default abdominoplasty plan because body-contouring patients vary substantially in anatomy, risk, and goals [8](#ref-8). --- ## Medical Suitability ****Key Point** Optimise comorbidities, smoking, nutrition, VTE risk, medications including GLP-1 receptor agonists, and stable weight for at least 6 months before body contouring surgery. Medical suitability determines whether the correct operation can be performed safely. The assessment should also identify when surgery should be delayed until weight, nutrition, medications, or risk factors have stabilised. ![Common indications for body contouring include excess skin following massive weight loss, localised adiposity, post-pregnancy changes, breast asymmetry or volume concerns, and regional contour deformities. Assessment should identify the dominant anatomical concern before selecting treatment.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/11/Template--64-.png) Common indications for body contouring ### Comorbidity Assessment Optimise the patient before surgery for safe and durable body contouring outcomes. - **Current status:** the first consultation should assess residual comorbidities and current weight before deciding operative suitability [10](#ref-10). - **Risk profile:** clinical history, comorbidities, and aesthetic demands should all inform abdominal body-contouring suitability [8](#ref-8). - **BMI:** BMI ≥30 kg/m² alone should not automatically exclude cosmetic abdominal contouring, but should prompt individualised risk assessment [11](#ref-11). - **Obesity counselling:** patients with obesity should be counselled about higher odds of seroma, haematoma, and total surgical site occurrences [11](#ref-11). ### Weight Stability Delay contouring while weight is actively changing, including during initiation or discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy. - **Stable interval:** aim for at least 3–6 months of stable weight before surgery. - **Postbariatric patients:** confirm nutritional stability, bariatric follow-up, and absence of rapid ongoing loss. - **GLP-1 receptor agonists:** document drug use, dose changes, gastrointestinal symptoms, and whether weight is still changing. - **Medication interpretation:** preoperative GLP-1 receptor agonist use has been associated with lower symptomatic and subclinical VTE in one obese female abdominoplasty cohort, but it does not replace standard VTE risk assessment [12](#ref-12). ### Risk Optimisation Correct modifiable risks before offering elective excisional contouring. - **Smoking:** require cessation and document nicotine exposure, including vaping and replacement products. - **Nutrition:** assess protein intake, micronutrient risk, anaemia, albumin concerns, and postbariatric supplementation. - **Herbal agents:** stop non-essential herbal medications that may increase bleeding or anaesthetic risk. ### Procedure-Specific Suitability Some contouring indications require functional criteria, conservative treatment, or exclusion of device-specific contraindications. - **Rectus diastasis:** surgical suitability should require functional impairment and completion of a standardised 6-month core training programme before surgery is considered [13](#ref-13). - **Postpartum timing:** postpartum patients should generally wait at least 2 years after last childbirth and have no planned future pregnancy before rectus diastasis surgery [13](#ref-13). - **Cryolipolysis contraindications:** exclude cryoglobulinaemia, cold urticaria, and paroxysmal cold haemoglobinuria before treatment [4](#ref-4). - **Treatment sites:** severe varicose veins, dermatitis, or cutaneous lesions should not be treated with cryolipolysis [4](#ref-4). ![Overview of body contouring procedures, including abdominoplasty, brachioplasty, thighplasty, liposuction, fat grafting, breast procedures, buttock augmentation, genital contouring and calf augmentation.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/10/Template--47-.png) Overview of body contouring procedures --- ## Regional Examination ****Key Point** Examine all affected regions systematically to identify the dominant problem: skin excess, adiposity, scars, hernia, diastasis recti, asymmetry, skin quality, and adjacent untreated laxity. A comprehensive assessment should include all affected body regions, not solely the area identified by the patient. The aim is to define what must be treated, what can be improved, and what should be left alone. ![Anterior and posterior views of anatomical regions assessed during body contouring examination](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/10/ChatGPT-Image-Oct-29--2026--01_12_07-PM.png) Anterior and posterior views of anatomical regions assessed during body contouring examination ### Global Inspection Assess the patient standing, moving, and circumferentially before committing to a regional plan. - **Standing contour:** assess anterior, oblique, lateral, and posterior views. - **Circumferential laxity:** check whether abdominal concerns extend into flanks, hips, back, pubis, or thighs. - **Adjacent units:** assess pubis, thighs, flanks, and hips for persistent skin excess or lipodystrophy when planning abdominoplasty [9](#ref-9). - **Asymmetry:** document pre-existing differences in folds, scars, fat distribution, and limb or trunk contour. ### Abdominal Wall Separate skin-fat excess from abdominal wall pathology during every abdominal contouring assessment. - **Diastasis recti:** document linea alba widening when separation exceeds 2 cm [14](#ref-14). - **Measurement:** most patients can be assessed clinically, with ultrasound or calipers for precision and CT when hernia detection or operative planning is needed [14](#ref-14). - **Recorded features:** document separation width, postpregnancy status, and whether a concomitant hernia is present [14](#ref-14). - **Bulge analysis:** distinguish fascial laxity, visceral fullness, subcutaneous fat, and postural lordosis. ### Regional Adiposity Decide whether fat is localised and pinchable, diffuse, or secondary to skin redundancy. - **Pinch test:** assess thickness, mobility, tenderness, cellulite, and quality of overlying skin. - **Electromagnetic candidacy:** pinchable subcutaneous fat thickness may matter because some investigators recommend limiting treatment to patients with less than 2.5 cm [15](#ref-15). - **HIFEM areas:** document the intended treatment region because published HIFEM studies include abdomen, buttocks, thighs, arms, and calves [3](#ref-3). - **Cryolipolysis sites:** assess localised adiposity in regions such as abdomen, flanks, thighs, peritrochanteric areas, arms, and ankles [4](#ref-4). ### Measurements Use reproducible measurements when they will change planning or allow later comparison. - **Abdominal levels:** tape measurements can be recorded at supraumbilical, periumbilical, and subumbilical levels relative to the umbilicus [16](#ref-16). - **Skin redundancy:** document vertical and horizontal excess, overhang, intertrigo, and functional obstruction. - **Scars:** map previous incisions, bariatric ports, caesarean scars, open abdominal scars, and tethering. - **Hernias:** examine cough impulse, reducibility, tenderness, and relationship to scars or diastasis recti. --- ## Psychosocial Assessment ****Key Point** Assess motivation, expectations, body image distress, readiness for staged surgery, support systems, and the need for psychological assessment or support in selected patients. Psychosocial assessment is not a barrier exercise. It identifies patients who will benefit from surgery, patients needing more preparation, and patients at risk of persistent dissatisfaction despite technically adequate contouring. ### Motivation Clarify what the patient wants surgery to change and whether that goal is anatomically achievable. - **Functional motivation:** record hygiene difficulty, intertrigo, clothing problems, exercise limitation, or pain. - **Aesthetic motivation:** identify the exact contour, fold, bulge, scar, or asymmetry causing concern. - **Baseline domains:** document appearance concerns, wellbeing, body image satisfaction, confidence, physical function, pain, and social function because these are reported quality-of-life domains after body contouring [17](#ref-17). - **Postbariatric distress:** assess dissatisfaction and distress about excess skin in postbariatric patients requesting body contouring [18](#ref-18). ### Expectations Align expected improvement with the limits of scars, staging, residual asymmetry, and non-invasive treatment. - **Result language:** use improvement, contour change, and trade-off rather than perfection. - **Staging readiness:** assess willingness to undergo multiple operations if circumferential laxity or several regions are involved. - **Non-invasive limits:** expectation-setting is required when non-invasive treatment is used for abdominal laxity [2](#ref-2). - **PROMs:** BODY-Q is the best-supported quality-of-life PROM identified for bariatric and body-contouring patients [19](#ref-19). ### Support Needs Psychological assessment or support may be needed when distress, expectations, coping, or eating behaviour may affect decision-making. - **Multidisciplinary care:** postbariatric assessment may require psychological and nutritional support alongside bariatric and plastic surgery care [20](#ref-20). - **Red flags:** consider support for severe body image distress, unstable mood, coercion, disordered eating concerns, or fixation on minor asymmetry. - **Eating concerns:** patients with eating-disorder concerns should have a standardised psychological evaluation pathway before aesthetic body-contouring decisions [21](#ref-21). - **Practical support:** confirm transport, wound care support, time off work, childcare, and ability to attend follow-up. --- ## Treatment Selection ****Key Point** Translate assessment into treatment by matching the dominant deformity and patient risk to excision, liposuction, abdominal wall repair, non-invasive treatment, staging, or deferral. Treatment selection is an assessment decision, not a list of operations. The safest plan treats the main anatomical problem while respecting patient risk, scar burden, recovery capacity, and long-term weight stability. ### Procedure Selection Choose the option that solves the dominant anatomical problem with the least inappropriate trade-off. ![Decision framework matching common abdominal contour concerns, including skin excess, localised adiposity, rectus diastasis, and circumferential laxity, with potential treatment approaches and their principal limitations.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/10/Template--9--1.png) Decision framework - **Algorithmic planning:** procedure selection should be individualised using an evidence-based abdominal body-contouring algorithm to maximise clinical and patient-reported outcomes [8](#ref-8). - **Risk filter:** select the safest effective plan, not the most extensive possible plan. - **Staging:** separate regions when combined operating time, wound burden, or recovery demands become excessive. ### Excisional Contouring Use excision when the main problem is redundant skin, ptosis, overhang, or poor skin recoil. - **Abdominoplasty pattern:** select the abdominal operation according to skin excess, umbilical position, scars, and wall laxity. - **Lipoabdominoplasty:** available pooled data do not show higher overall complications than traditional abdominoplasty and report fewer complications overall [22](#ref-22). - **Fluid collections:** pooled subgroup data found lower haematoma and seroma risk with lipoabdominoplasty than traditional abdominoplasty [22](#ref-22). - **Lower trunk unit:** high lateral tension abdominoplasty may offer more complete correction from abdomen to pubis, hips, and thighs when lower-trunk laxity dominates [9](#ref-9). ### Liposuction and Devices Use fat-reduction methods only when adiposity is the main problem and the skin envelope can tolerate volume reduction. - **Liposuction:** best fits localised adiposity with acceptable skin quality and realistic expectations about irregularity. - **Poor recoil:** significant laxity, striae, or overhang usually needs excision rather than fat removal alone. - **Electromagnetic treatment:** select cautiously because safety appears acceptable but efficacy evidence is tenuous and measured effects are very small [15](#ref-15). - **RF-HIFEM protocol:** studied simultaneous abdominal radiofrequency-HIFEM treatment used three 30-minute weekly sessions [23](#ref-23). ### Abdominal Wall Repair Treat rectus diastasis as a functional abdominal wall problem, not simply a contour defect. - **Physiotherapy:** patients with rectus diastasis may be offered physiotherapy before surgical correction [14](#ref-14). - **No hernia:** if surgery is selected without a concomitant hernia, linea alba plication is the suggested operative approach [14](#ref-14). - **Associated hernia:** rectus diastasis with a midline hernia generally supports mesh-based repair, although plication may be sufficient for umbilical or epigastric hernia below 1 cm [14](#ref-14). - **Evidence caution:** open mesh repair and suture plication showed no significant differences in seroma, infection, recurrence, or difficulty with physical activity in one meta-analysis [24](#ref-24). --- ## Scar Planning and Documentation ****Key Point** Body contouring assessment must include standardised photography, scar planning, visibility trade-offs, previous scar mapping, and documentation of possible scars during consent. Scar planning is part of indication setting. The patient must understand that contour improvement is purchased with visible scars, and the record must show what was assessed, planned, and discussed. ![Standardised photographic views and abdominal scar planning, highlighting previous surgical scars, proposed incision placement, and areas at risk of lateral scar extension or dog-ear formation.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/10/Template--10--1.png) Standardised photographic views and abdominal scar planning ![Anterior and posterior views highlighting the anatomical regions assessed during body contouring examination, including the abdomen, flanks, back, hips, thighs, and adjacent areas for skin excess, adiposity, scars, and asymmetry.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/a0/9f/a09fd7b4-d396-4b28-aed3-b87e20483292/content/images/2026/10/Template--12--1.png) Anterior and posterior views of the anatomical regions assessed during body contouring examination ### Medical Photography Use standardised photographs to document baseline deformity and later compare outcome. - **Core record:** abdominal contouring assessment should include standardised medical photography for reliable preoperative and postoperative comparison [25](#ref-25). - **Views:** standing photographs at 0°, 45°, and 90° can track aesthetic change [16](#ref-16). - **Integrity:** photographs are central to evaluating aesthetic outcomes and should be high-integrity documentation [15](#ref-15). - **Medicolegal risk:** inaccurate or inadequate photographic documentation may create medicolegal risk [25](#ref-25). ### Scar Planning Plan scars around clothing, previous incisions, tissue movement, and the patient’s tolerance for visibility. - **Scar position:** mark likely scar location relative to underwear, swimwear, umbilicus, and previous scars. - **High scars:** anticipate that traditional abdominoplasty scars may ride too high [9](#ref-9). - **Scar deformity:** pooled abdominoplasty or lipoabdominoplasty data reported scar deformity in 0.7% of adults, which should be included in counselling [22](#ref-22). - **Consent discussion:** document possible scars, scar extension, hypertrophy, widening, dog-ears, and asymmetry. ### Staged Documentation Record enough detail that later stages can be planned from the same baseline logic. - **Regional priorities:** document which areas are first-stage priorities and which are deferred. - **Previous scars:** map scars that may alter vascularity, flap mobility, or future incision placement. - **Patient goals:** record agreed goals using standardised protocols and validated clinical tools when injectable body treatments are planned [2](#ref-2). - **Change over time:** repeat photography when weight, scars, laxity, or treatment goals change before surgery. --- ## Complications and Safety Counselling ****Key Point** Assessment-focused counselling should mention major early risks, late contour and scar problems, lymphatic complications, and revision risk, with extra caution in higher-risk patients. Complication counselling at assessment should be concise. The purpose is to identify risk, support consent, and decide whether to optimise, stage, defer, or proceed. ### Risk Counselling Discuss the main safety risks without turning the assessment consultation into complication management. - **Early risks:** haematoma, VTE, seroma, infection, dehiscence, cellulitis, and skin necrosis. - **Abdominoplasty rates:** pooled abdominoplasty/lipoabdominoplasty rates included seroma 4.1%, haematoma 0.8%, wound infection/dehiscence/fat necrosis 5.6%, DVT 0.2%, and scar deformity 0.7% [22](#ref-22). - **Higher-risk groups:** massive-weight-loss body contouring patients should be counselled that published complication rates range from 31% to 66% [26](#ref-26). - **Risk response:** higher risk may justify optimisation, staging, or deferral rather than a larger single-stage plan. ### Late Sequelae Include late aesthetic and functional trade-offs in consent before choosing the plan. - **Contour problems:** asymmetry, contour irregularity, recurrent laxity, residual adiposity, and skin redundancy. - **Scar problems:** hypertrophic scars, widened scars, malposition, dog-ears, and possible revision. - **Lymphatic issues:** swelling, lymphatic fistula, lymphocele, and persistent lymphatic complications, especially after thigh or groin-adjacent surgery. - **Safety planning:** staging should be considered when avoiding long operations associated with increased postoperative morbidity [10](#ref-10). --- ## Outcomes and Follow-Up Assessment ****Key Point** Follow-up assessment should confirm wound healing, patient satisfaction, goal achievement, readiness for staged surgery, and durability of the contour relative to weight change and recurrent laxity. Outcome assessment is not limited to the scar or photograph. Reassess whether the original goals were met, whether new priorities have emerged, and whether the patient has recovered enough for further treatment. ### Healing Review Confirm adequate recovery before judging the final contour or planning the next stage. - **Early review:** assess wound healing, swelling, pain, seroma concerns, infection signs, and functional recovery. - **Scar evolution:** document scar position, widening, hypertrophy, pigmentation, and patient concern. - **Contour timing:** avoid definitive judgement while oedema, bruising, or tissue settling is still evolving. - **Staged surgery:** allow complete wound healing and a sufficient recovery interval before subsequent operations; many practices use around three months as a practical reassessment point. - **Residual concerns:** record whether dissatisfaction reflects residual deformity, scar burden, asymmetry, weight change, or unrealistic expectations. ### Durability Assessment Reassess weight, skin quality, abdominal wall stability, and staged priorities over time. - **Weight stability:** further weight loss or regain may unmask recurrent laxity or change regional priorities. - **Abdominal wall:** recurrent bulge after rectus diastasis repair needs functional reassessment, not just aesthetic review. - **Non-invasive endpoints:** device-based treatments should be followed with objective measurements rather than weight change alone when contour is the target. - **Next-stage planning:** proceed only when goals remain consistent, risks are optimised, and the previous treatment has healed satisfactorily. --- ## References **\[1\]** Shermak. Body contouring.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2012\. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31824ecd24 **\[2\]** Haddad et al.. Injectable Poly-L-Lactic Acid for Body Aesthetic Treatments: An International Consensus on Evidence Assessment and Practical Recommendations.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2025\. doi:10.1007/s00266-024-04499-9 **\[3\]** Kohan et al.. High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic (HIFEM) Energy With and Without Radiofrequency for Noninvasive Body Contouring: A Systematic Review\\.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2024\. doi:10.1007/s00266-023-03730-3 **\[4\]** Ingargiola et al.. Cryolipolysis for fat reduction and body contouring: safety and efficacy of current treatment paradigms.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2015\. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001236 **\[5\]** Alizadeh et al.. Non-invasive Body Contouring Technologies: An Updated Narrative Review\\.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2024\. doi:10.1007/s00266-023-03647-x **\[6\]** Fijany et al.. Comparing the safety and effectiveness of different liposuction techniques for lipedema.. Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS. 2024\. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2024.07.038 **\[7\]** Haykal et al.. A Systematic Review of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Skin Tightening and Body Contouring.. Aesthetic surgery journal. 2025\. doi:10.1093/asj/sjaf053 **\[8\]** Rosenfield et al.. Evidence-Based Abdominoplasty Review With Body Contouring Algorithm.. Aesthetic surgery journal. 2020\. doi:10.1093/asj/sjz013 **\[9\]** Rosenfield. High tension abdominoplasty 2.0.. Clinics in plastic surgery. 2010\. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2010.03.005 **\[10\]** Kokosis et al.. Safety in Body Contouring to Avoid Complications.. Clinics in plastic surgery. 2019\. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2018.08.004 **\[11\]** Niu et al.. Obesity as a Risk Factor in Cosmetic Abdominal Body Contouring: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2024\. doi:10.1007/s00266-023-03602-w **\[12\]** Bruno et al.. Preoperative GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Thromboinflammatory Markers in Patients Undergoing Abdominoplasty: A Prospective Monocentric Study.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2026\. doi:10.1007/s00266-026-05805-3 **\[13\]** Carlstedt et al.. Management of diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscles: recommendations for swedish national guidelines.. Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society. 2021\. doi:10.1177/1457496920961000 **\[14\]** Henriksen et al.. European Hernia Society guidelines on management of rectus diastasis.. The British journal of surgery. 2021\. doi:10.1093/bjs/znab128 **\[15\]** Swanson. A Systematic Review of Electromagnetic Treatments for Body Contouring.. Annals of plastic surgery. 2023\. doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003387 **\[16\]** Wu et al.. A Clinical Early Evaluation of the Combined Use of Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound and Radiofrequency for Female Abdominal Contouring.. Journal of cosmetic dermatology. 2025\. doi:10.1111/jocd.70267 **\[17\]** Gilmartin et al.. Quality of life among adults following bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review\\.. JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports. 2016\. doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003182 **\[18\]** Mokhtar et al.. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures following Postbariatric Body Contouring: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2026\. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000012544 **\[19\]** de et al.. Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review\\.. Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity. 2018\. doi:10.1111/obr.12710 **\[20\]** ElAbd et al.. Body Contouring Surgery Improves Weight Loss after Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2021\. doi:10.1007/s00266-020-02016-2 **\[21\]** Barone et al.. Eating Disorders and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2024\. doi:10.1007/s00266-024-04020-2 **\[22\]** Xia et al.. Safety of Lipoabdominoplasty Versus Abdominoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2019\. doi:10.1007/s00266-018-1270-3 **\[23\]** Samuels et al.. Radiofrequency Heating and High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Treatment Delivered Simultaneously: The First Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2022\. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000009030 **\[24\]** Wang et al.. Mesh repair versus suture plication for rectus diastasis: the results of meta-analysis.. Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery. 2025\. doi:10.1007/s10029-025-03507-4 **\[25\]** Dietl et al.. Basic Photographic Standards for Abdominal Contouring Procedures and Abdominoplasty/Lipectomy.. Aesthetic plastic surgery. 2019\. doi:10.1007/s00266-018-1143-9 **\[26\]** Albino et al.. A comparative analysis and systematic review of the wound-healing milieu: implications for body contouring after massive weight loss.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2009\. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b98bb4 **\[27\]** Reavey et al.. Measuring quality of life and patient satisfaction after body contouring: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures.. Aesthetic surgery journal. 2011\. doi:10.1177/1090820X11417426