Evidence Hub

Revisiting Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome as a Relative Contraindication to Elective Plastic Surgery: A Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

R'ay Fodor, Riley Marlar, Ying C. Ku, Mazen Al-Malak, Kate K. Jensen, Jacob Lammers, Ryan Khalaf, Abigail Meyers et al.

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2025

97 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes comprise a heterogeneous group of connective tissue disorders, often associated with concerns about poor wound healing and elevated surgical complication rates. This study evaluated the safety of elective plastic surgery in EDS patients relative to matched controls. We hypothesized that EDS patients would not experience higher complication rates relative to matched controls.

METHODS

An IRB approved retrospective cohort study of EDS patients and matched controls who underwent elective plastic surgery between 2003 and 2023 was conducted at a tertiary health care system. Patients were matched for comorbidities, medications, and other factors affecting wound healing. Complication rates, categorized by severity and timing, were compared between groups. Data analysis included paired t-tests and McNemar's tests. To detect a complication rate difference of 10% (α=0.05, β=0.2), a sample of 97 patients per group was required.

RESULTS

One-hundred EDS patients (86% female, mean age 43.29±17.45 years, mean BMI 26.47±6.01) and 100 matched controls (86% female, mean age 42.98±18.12 years, mean BMI 26.82±6.61) were included. The most common EDS subtype was hypermobile EDS (41%), followed by classical (6%) and vascular EDS (2%). Complications were observed in 25% of EDS patients and 35% of controls (p=0.16). There was no significant difference in the rate of minor complications (EDS: 19% vs. Controls: 24%, p=0.39) or major complications (EDS: 6% vs.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 97 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free