Display options
Cite
Pearson A, Wiechula R, Jordan Z, et al. Policy related to abdominoplasty in publicly funded elective surgery programs: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009;7(2):75-93doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00128.x.
Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., Jordan, Z., & Louey, M. (2009). Policy related to abdominoplasty in publicly funded elective surgery programs: a systematic review. International journal of evidence-based healthcare, 7(2), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00128.x
Pearson, Alan, et al. "Policy related to abdominoplasty in publicly funded elective surgery programs: a systematic review." International journal of evidence-based healthcare vol. 7,2 (2009): 75-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00128.x
Pearson A, Wiechula R, Jordan Z, Louey M. Policy related to abdominoplasty in publicly funded elective surgery programs: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009 Jun;7(2):75-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00128.x. PMID: 21631849.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2009 Jun;7(2):75-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00128.x.

Policy related to abdominoplasty in publicly funded elective surgery programs: a systematic review.

International journal of evidence-based healthcare

Alan Pearson, Rick Wiechula, Zoe Jordan, Melissa Louey

Affiliations

  1. Joanna Briggs Institute, Royal Adelaide Hospital and The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

PMID: 21631849 DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00128.x

Abstract

Objectives  This systematic review set out to establish best practice in relation to policy for the inclusion/exclusion of abdominoplasty procedures within public health systems. Inclusion criteria  The review considered any studies relating to abdominoplasty that addressed issues of inclusion/exclusion from public funded health systems including criteria for clinical need, contraindications, fit/ready for surgery, policy compliance and issues in relation to surgical training. Search strategy  The search strategy sought to find published and unpublished studies and papers limited to English. An initial search of Medline and CINAHL was undertaken, followed by an analysis of keywords contained in the title, abstract and index terms. A second comprehensive search was then undertaken using Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, AUSTROM, Health Business, and FullTEXT Elite and PsycINFO. The search was restricted to the period 1995-2005. Methodological quality  Each paper identified was assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological quality before inclusion in the review using an appropriate critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management and Assessment Review Instrument package. Results  A total of 19 papers were included in the review. Owing to the diverse nature of the papers no meta-analysis or meta-synthesis was able to be used to pool studies. The results are therefore presented in a narrative form. The papers identified were mainly retrospective audits and discussion/opinion papers. The main issues addressed were criteria to establish clinical need, contraindications and policy compliance. Conclusion  There are clinical indicators, mainly in relation to physical symptoms/dysfunction, to support exemption of some cases of abdominoplasty. For abdominoplasty to be conducted clinical need must be assessed and formally documented. Where clinical need is primarily based on psychological distress/dysfunction a formal psychiatric assessment should be used to justify surgery.

© 2009 Joanna Briggs Institute. Journal Compilation © Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Publication Types