Applications of three-dimensional surgical planning in facial feminization surgery: A systematic review

Facial Feminization: Upper Third of the Face

Facial feminization surgery (FFS) is a crucial intervention for transgender women. This article delves into comprehensive reconstruction of the upper third of the face, discussing anatomic differences between masculine and feminine features, and surgical considerations. Technical considerations, preoperative planning, procedural approaches, and postoperative care are described in detail. Patient-centered operative planning and execution ensure safety and efficacy in FFS and uphold its transformative effect on quality of life in appropriately selected surgical candidates.

Preoperative Radiology and Virtual Surgical Planning

Virtual surgical planning enables precise surgical planning and translation of this planning into the operating room. Preoperative maxillofacial computed tomography scans are compared to a reference skull to identify desired surgical changes. In facial feminization surgery, these include forehead recontouring/frontal table setback, gonial angle reduction, and possible chin repositioning/reshaping, while in facial masculinization surgery, this includes forehead augmentation and gonial angle/chin augmentation. Cutting and recontouring guides as well as custom implants are then custom manufactured. Common guides include osteotomy guides, depth drilling guides, ostectomy guides, and guides for one/two-piece genioplasty or chin burring. Common implants include mandibular and chin implants.

Facial Feminization: Middle Third of the Face

Facial feminization surgery (FFS) as applied to the midfacial region targets modifications to the nasal and malar esthetic complexes. Although a global assessment is paramount in achieving desired functional results, most patients benefit from malar feminization in the form of bony and soft tissue augmentation, and nasal feminization in the form of reductive rhinoplasty. For patients with signs of aging, additional interventions in the form of rhytidectomy are powerful adjuncts to feminization. As with FFS techniques directed toward the upper and lower thirds, the overarching goal is to obtain complementary outcomes that enhance facial harmony and beauty.

Measuring Outcomes in Aesthetic Surgery by Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons

SUMMARY

Aesthetic surgery is a visual specialty in which plastic surgeons and patients work together to enhance or restore facial and body harmony. The field of aesthetic surgery is advanced through descriptive technical procedures and outcomes research. With increasing competition in cosmetic medicine, aesthetic surgery stands to benefit from an evidence-based approach to document the high standards of care from board-certified plastic surgeons. In this article, the authors highlight challenges, current objective and subjective outcomes, and a path forward.

Technique for Cephalometric Analysis of the Craniofacial Skeleton Following Facial Feminization Surgery

Facial feminization surgery (FFS) is characterized by a series of relatively diverse procedures aimed at aligning skeletal and soft tissue facial appearance with one's experienced feminine gender. Although there are several well-described outcomes from surgical techniques, there is no standardized methodology to provide reliable analyses of postoperative FFS outcomes. This paper describes the first reliable and reproducible technique to accurately and consistently measure post-FFS changes to guide surgical planning to optimize patient outcomes.

The Limited Coverage of Facial Feminization Surgery in the United States: A Literature Review of Policy Constraints and Implications

There is a literature gap regarding facial feminization surgery (FFS) access and coverage. Our goal is to compile information from previous studies and assess the current policy landscape for these surgeries in the US. We also explored why some policies do not cover them, identify states with better coverage, and determine the most covered procedures. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched for studies that reviewed policies on FFS coverage. Studies on surgical techniques or other gender-affirming surgeries (GASs) that did not involve FFS were excluded. Seven studies were included for analysis. In 2014, the Department of Human Health Services (HHS) lifted the transgender exclusion policy, leading to an increase in policies regarding GASs for both private and state insurance. However, there are differences in medical necessity requirements among policies, which may not align with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) criteria. States that prohibit exclusion tend to offer better coverage for FFS. These states are mainly located in the western and northeast regions, whereas states in the southern and middle east regions have less coverage. Among the procedures, chondrolaryngoplasty is the most covered, while facial and cervical rhytidectomy are the least covered. To enhance transgender care, it is crucial to reach a consensus on how to offer coverage for facial feminization surgery. However, there is a lack of adequate research on this topic, and there is a need for resources and tools to assess the results of FFS procedures. One significant constraint of this study is that it does not provide a systematic review of the literature.

Trends in Craniofacial Fellowship Career Outcomes: A Call for Expanding Professional Opportunities in Craniofacial Surgery

PURPOSE

Limited available pediatric plastic surgery positions fail to accommodate the increasing number of craniofacial fellows trained annually. However, many adult indications have increased the demand for craniofacial expertise. Given new opportunities available to craniofacial surgeons, the authors aim to evaluate career prospects for recent craniofacial graduates and explore additional career opportunities.

METHODS

Upon approval from the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons (ASCFS), an anonymous online survey invitation was sent to craniofacial fellows who graduated from 2016 to 2021. Respondents were queried regarding their craniofacial fellowship and subsequent career prospects.

RESULTS

A total of 124 eligible participants were identified, of which 30 (24.2%) responded. Craniomaxillofacial case distribution at respondents' current practices varied, with 42.3% reporting a 50% to 75% craniofacial caseload and 38.5% reporting less than 25%. Craniofacial trauma reconstruction was performed most at current positions (92.3%), followed by general reconstruction (92.3%) and breast surgery (69.2%); the least commonly performed was facial feminization (23.1%). Most respondents desired an increased craniomaxillofacial caseload (65.4%). However, 26.9% were unable to secure their current position before fellowship completion, and 80.0% cited limited craniofacial job availability. Recommendations to improve fellowship comprehensiveness and increase candidate competitiveness included increased facial feminization, facial esthetic, and microsurgical experience.

CONCLUSION

To adapt to trends in craniomaxillofacial surgery, ASCFS should encourage developing fellowships that increase exposure to gender-affirming, adult craniofacial reconstruction, orthognathic, and skeletal facial esthetic surgery. Expanding training beyond congenital deformities can provide additional employment opportunities while maintaining excellence and innovation in facial plastic surgery.