You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    Volume 48, Issue 5 (September 2003)

    Author's Response

    Published Online: 2003


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (12K) $25   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    The following is a response to the commentaries by Drs. Coldiron (J. Forensic Sci 2003;48:271) and Coleman and Lawrence (J. Forensic Sci 2003;48:697): Our dermatological colleagues should recognize that there are semantic differences between “tumescent liposuction,” “tumescent anesthesia,” and tumescent technique” as used by the broad array of clinicians. Concurrent use of general or intramuscular anesthesia has been used by some of our surgical colleagues (1–3). In our article, we used the term “tumescent liposuction” in reference to the fact that a bolus of fluid and medication is inserted into the surgical site. Hanke and Coleman (4) speak of “semitumescent liposuction” when general anesthesia is used. Webster’s dictionary describes “tumescent” as a swelling. Thus, to us, the term “tumescent liposuction” is a generic concept. We prefer that our dermatological colleagues use the term “tumescent techniques as described by Klein” (5) so that any ambiguity can be avoided.

    Stock #: JFS2003123


    DOI: 10.1520/JFS2003123

    Title Author's Response
    Symposium ,
    Committee E30