Aesthetic forehead reduction in female patients: Surgical details and analysis of outcome

The 10-7 Facial Analysis Method for Face Lifting and Facial Rejuvenation

SUMMARY

Proper facial analysis is the first step toward delivering an excellent result in any face lifting or facial rejuvenating operation or procedure. Every case should be approached in a systematic and comprehensive manner, ensuring proper assessment of specific anatomic regions contributing to facial aging as well as the global facial aesthetic. Failure to do so may result in an unnatural or partially rejuvenated face. The senior author's (R.J.R.) approach entails 10 key anatomic regions on the frontal view and 7 on the lateral view. The 10-7 facial analysis method allows the surgeon to reliably assess every patient in a detailed, top-down, structural approach when considering face lifting or facial rejuvenation.

Forehead Reduction Surgery with Hairline Advancement

Hairline reduction surgery, also known as aesthetic forehead reduction, is a surgical procedure that aims to reduce the upper facial third and improve facial harmony. This article describes the anatomy of hairline advancement surgery and the surgical technique used by the author. The study included 21 patients from 2019 to 2023, and the forehead reduction length was on average 22.48 ± 2.64 mm. The most common complaint was hypoesthesia of the scalp, present in 100% of patients, resolving in all cases by 2 months after surgery. Forehead reduction surgery is among the procedures that provide more satisfaction to patients due to the great changes that it can achieve.

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature.

METHODS

A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis.

RESULTS

There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.