Comparison of Aesthetic Results of Mercedes-Y Versus Inverted-V Incision for Umbilical Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Abstract

Background: The appearance and position of navel which are considered as a marker for overall abdominal aesthetics, are important for the final results of abdominal surgeries. However, reconstructing and improving its appearance have been a challenge in plastic surgery.

Hypothesis: In this study, we aimed to compare satisfaction of the patients and the plastic surgery professors with the aesthetic results of the two methods of umbilical reconstruction: Mercedes (Y) incision versus inverted-V incision.

Methods: This is a randomized clinical trial performed on umbilicoplasty patients following abdominoplasty, breast reconstruction, or abdominal flap surgery whom referred to our center. They were divided into two equal groups of twenty patients with Mercedes (Y) incision and patients with inverted-V incision. The results of surgery were compared three months after the surgery by the opinions of patients, plastic surgery professors, and unbiased observers.

Results: The average scores of patients, professors, and observers showed that Mercedes (Y) had significantly higher scores compared to inverted-V incision in terms of position, size, shape, natural appearance, and the overall satisfaction. Surgical complications including stenosis, necrosis, and wound dehiscence were not statistically different in our small sample size.

Conclusion: In this study, Mercedes (Y) incision was preferred by all of the groups in all five parameters that were assessed including size, shape, position, natural appearance, and overall satisfaction. The simplicity of the Y incision with less visible scar makes it a suitable method for further investigations with a larger sample size. Level of Evidence I This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .