Minimally invasive aesthetic treatment of male patients: The importance of consultation and the lower third of the face

Fat Grafting the Male Face

There are many developmental sexual dimorphisms of the human face, and thereby differences in aging based on sex. Sensitivity regarding the nature of the changes that are unique to the male face as well as understanding men's unique aesthetic goals will allow the skilled practitioner to tailor rejuvenating treatments accordingly. Fat grafting of the male face has not been extensively described but is an excellent tool for facial rejuvenation either as an adjunct or a stand-alone procedure. Each treatment area demands different techniques and special attention to avoid unintentional feminization.

The perception of lip aesthetics in the context of facial proportions-An eye-tracking-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive lip volumizing and contouring soft tissue filler procedures are frequently requested by both female and male aesthetic patients. Guidance on how to achieve the most beautiful outcome is inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate what the most beautiful proportions are in relation to vermillion thickness, the distance of the upper and lower lip in relation to nose and chin, and relation to the bigonial distance.

METHODS

This study included a total of n = 101 volunteers (52 females, 49 males, 100% Caucasian) who inspected frontal images of modified facial proportions and answered a related questionnaire showcasing the same images. Image presentation followed a randomized sequence both for the eye tracking and for the survey component of this study but was equal for all observers.

RESULTS

The most attractive vertical position of lips was the 1:2 ratio in which the distance between lips and chin is double the length as the distance between lips and nose. For the ratio between the width of the lips and the bigonial distance, it was the 1:2.5 ratio, whereas for the thickness of the upper lip vermilion in relation to the upper lip ergotrid it was the 1:3/1:2 (male/female) ratio and for the lower lip vermilion and lower lip ergotrid it was the 1:4 ratio for both genders.

CONCLUSION

The results of this eye tracking and survey-based investigation revealed that instead of one single universal ratio, multiple facial proportions exist that are perceived as most attractive/masculine/feminine. Regarding the perception of facial aesthetics, it appears there is a distinction between attractiveness and masculinity/femininity: the most attractive male/female face is not necessarily the most masculine or feminine.

A Review of Aesthetic Considerations for Treating the Transgender Patient

BACKGROUND

As gender diversity becomes increasingly embraced by society, and despite growing recognition of the unique needs of transgender patients, the literature remains devoid of guidelines for gender affirming facial feminization or masculinization techniques.

OBJECTIVE

The authors seek to identify and discuss target feminine and masculine facial features, as well as an armamentarium of surgical and nonsurgical strategies to effectively address and achieve them in the transgender population.

METHODS

A search of the National Library of Medicine database (PubMed) was undertaken to identify the existing literature on gender-affirming facial feminization and masculinization techniques.

RESULTS

The importance of assessing proportional relationships between the bitemporal, bizygomatic, and bigonial distances is discussed; ideal masculine faces possess a rectangular face shape, with ratios for these 3 areas tending toward 1:1:1. Conversely, the ideal female face is heart shaped with projection at the zygoma and a tapered jawline. Strategic positioning of the cheek apex serves as an anchor in sculpting a distinctly masculine or feminine face. Other considerations include the enhancement of skin quality and implications of hormonal therapy.

CONCLUSION

The aesthetic considerations provided in this study can serve as a valuable guidance for aesthetic physicians seeking to deliver optimal care for their transitioning patients.

The Application and Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Chin Enhancement and Retrusion Correction: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes

A frequent facial abnormality called chin retrusion, also known as retrognathia, can be detrimental to a person's self-esteem and overall face aesthetics. Hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are one non-surgical approach to this problem that may provide individuals seeking chin augmentation with a relatively less invasive and potentially more affordable alternative. The present literature does not provide enough in-depth systematic reviews of the use of HA in chin augmentation. By completing a complete examination of the information that is currently available, this study intends to fill this knowledge gap, supporting physicians and researchers in better comprehending the efficacy and implications of HA in chin augmentation. The safety and success of any esthetic procedure should be made based on the results reported by the patients, including satisfaction and quality of life. Patients need to receive comprehensive surgical instructions from a medical professional to optimize the results of the HA injections for chin enhancement surgery. Regardless of the reported safety of using HA injections, some unwanted side effects have also been recorded. Indeed, healthcare professionals can make more informed decisions and give a patient comprehensive information about the procedure's risks and benefits to the patients. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE, OVID, and Google Scholar databases were searched up to June 2023. We concentrated on adult patients treated with HA for chin enhancement, and our research was limited to studies conducted in English. A total of 2,738 patients from 24 articles were studied, with 2,259 receiving HA injections for chin augmentation. When applicable, aesthetic outcomes were assessed using scales such as the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS)/FACE-Q and the Galderma Chin Retrusion Scale. Patient satisfaction increased noticeably. Among the studies, some reported complications following HA injection. While three studies found no significant negative effects, one highlighted a major necrotic complication. HA has proven to be an effective and safe alternative to chin augmentation surgery, with the majority of patients showing high satisfaction rates. However, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to obtain meaningful results, which will contribute to the further development of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. These studies may facilitate further innovation and refinement of these techniques and potentially expand the application of HA fillers in facial aesthetics.

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.

The Efficacy and Duration of Onabotulinum Toxin A in Improving Upper Facial Expression Lines With 64-Unit Dose Optimization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Onabotulinumtoxin A (Onabot A) was the first treatment to be approved for aesthetic indications, namely glabellar lines (GLs), crow's feet lines (CFLs), and forehead lines (FHLs), with a cumulative dose of 64 U.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to combine the available data for approved doses for GLs, CFLs, and FHLs to explore the effect and duration of simultaneous treatment with Onabot A.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and other national clinical trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials from January 2010 to July 2022. The meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and investigator-assessed time to return to nonresponder status in GLs, CFLs, and FHLs following Onabot A were plotted to elicit a cumulative dose-adjusted response curve based on Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test.

RESULTS

Fourteen randomized controlled trials were eligible for quantitative analysis. A total of 8369 subjects were recruited across the trials. The meta-analysis results show that Onabot A is very effective in reducing moderate to severe GLs, CFLs, and FHLs. The cumulative Z-curve for GLs, CFLs, and FHLs also exceeds the required information size (RIS). Kaplan-Meier analysis with a log-rank test demonstrated that simultaneous treatment of GLs, CFLs, and FHLs requires 182 days (95% CI = 179, 215 days) (P < 0.00002) to return to nonresponder status.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of the upper facial expression lines with Onabot A is effective, and the approved cumulative dose of 64 U gives longer-lasting effects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1

Look Better, Feel Better, Live Better? The Impact of Minimally Invasive Aesthetic Procedures on Satisfaction with Appearance and Psychosocial Wellbeing

BACKGROUND

Patients pursue cosmetic procedures to improve physical appearance as well as self-esteem and confidence, which translates into better quality of life. As aesthetic providers, it is important to understand the improvement in quality of life that can be achieved from various aesthetic procedures, best measured by patient reported outcomes (PROs), such as the validated FACE-Q.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes FACE-Q outcomes after nonsurgical dermatological facial cosmetic procedures.

METHODS

A review of relevant clinical terms was performed on the PUBMED database. All abstracts were reviewed; articles were included based on relevancy; bibliographies of selected articles were reviewed; and supplemental articles were added accordingly.

RESULTS

The current literature has 31 articles using the FACE-Q to measure quality of life, focusing on satisfaction with appearance, psychological wellbeing, social wellbeing, age appraisal, and recovery early life impact (i.e. disruption of the procedure on daily life activities) after minimally invasive aesthetic facial procedures. Clinical studies focused on treatment with dermal fillers for mid-face rejuvenation, chin/lower-face enhancement, lip enhancement, botulinum toxin-A for glabellar lines, combined filler and botulinum toxin-A, and other. Nearly all FACE-Q domains improved following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Absolute changes in FACE-Q psychological wellbeing and age appraisal were greatest with combined treatments compared to single treatments.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included varying follow-up times, lack of control groups, and publication bias for positive findings.

CONCLUSION

To maximize patient satisfaction and retention, providers should consider a combined treatment approach, to improve patient psychological wellbeing and age appraisal, and ultimately quality of life.