The use of body circumferences for the prediction of intra-abdominal fat in obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Introduction: Computerizd tomography (CT) is the gold standard for the evaluation of intra- (IAF) and total (TAF) abdominal fat; however, the high cost of the procedure and exposure to radiation limit its routine use. Objective: To develop equations that utilize anthropometric measures for the estimate of IAF and TAF in obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods: The weight, height, BMI, and abdominal (AC), waist (WC), chest (CC), and neck (NC) circumferences of thirty obese women with PCOS were measured, and their IAF and TAF were analyzed by CT. Results: The anthropometric variables AC, CC, and NC were chosen for the TAF linear regression model because they were better correlated with the fat deposited in this region. The model proposed for TAF (predicted) was: 4.63725 + 0.01483 x AC - 0.00117 x NC - 0.00177 x CC (R-2 = 0.78); and the model proposed for IAF was: IAF (predicted) = 1.88541 + 0.01878 x WC + 0.05687 x NC - 0.01529 x CC (R-2 = 0.51). AC was the only independent predictor of TAF (p < 0.01). Conclusion: The equations proposed showed good correlation with the real value measured by CT, and can be used in clinical practice. (Nutr Hosp. 2012;27:1662-1666) DOI:10.3305/nh.2012.27.5.5933

Evaluation of Aesthetic Abdominal Surgery Using a New Clinical Scale

Evaluation of outcomes after aesthetic surgery still is a challenge in plastic surgery. The evaluation frequently is based on subjective criteria. This study used a new clinical grading scale to evaluate aesthetic results for plastic surgeries to the abdomen. The method scores each of the following five parameters: volume of subcutaneous tissue, contour, excess of skin, aspect of the navel, and quality of the scar on the abdominal wall. The scale options are 0 (poor), 1 (fair), and 2 (good), and the total rate can range from 0 to 10. The study included 40 women ages 18-53 years. Of these 40 women, 20 underwent traditional abdominoplasty, and 20 had liposuction alone. Preoperatively and at least 1 year later, photographic results were analyzed and scored by three independent plastic surgeons. In the abdominoplasty group, the average grade rose from 2.9 +/- A 0.4 to 6.8 +/- A 0.4 postoperatively. In the liposuction group, the average grade was 5.3 +/- A 0.5 preoperatively and 7.7 +/- A 0.4 postoperatively. In both groups, the average postoperative grade was significantly higher than the preoperative grade. The mean scores for groups A and L were significantly different, demonstrating that the scale was sensitive in identifying different anatomic abnormalities in the abdomen. The rating scale used for the aesthetic evaluation of the abdomen was effective in the analysis of two different procedures: conventional abdominoplasty and liposuction. Abdominoplasty provided the greater gain according to a comparison of the pre- and postoperative scores.