Complications and Risks Associated with the Different Types of Abdominoplasties: An Analysis of 55,956 Patients

BACKGROUND

Different types of abdominoplasties have been developed to address individual patient characteristics. However, complication rates and risk factors for complications between different types of abdominoplasties has yet to be reported.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the complication rates and risks associated with each type of abdominoplasty.

METHODS

Using the CosmetAssure database, patients undergoing an abdominoplasty from 2015 to 2022 were identified. Demographic factors and major complications were recorded and analyzed using a chi-square test or ANOVA. A logistic regression was performed to identify the risk associated with each type of abdominoplasty for developing complications.

RESULTS

A total of 55,596 patients underwent an abdominoplasty procedure by any method. The overall complication rate was 2.1%. There was a significant difference in the overall complication rate between all seven types of abdominoplasties (p<0.05), with Fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty having the highest complication rate. The year of surgery, being underweight or morbidly obese, diabetes, and being male placed patients at a significantly higher risk for developing a post-operative complication. Over 15,000 patients (27.2%) had concurrent procedures related to breast surgery, other body contouring, liposuction, or facial surgery. When accounting for various risk factors in a regression model, there was no significant added risk for major complications after a combination procedure with an abdominoplasty compared to abdominoplasty alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the different types of abdominoplasties, a Fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty has the highest complication rate. Concurrent cosmetic procedures in addition to an abdominoplasty showed no added risk for major complications compared to abdominoplasty alone.

Complete Hemifacial Paralysis Post-facelift: Making Sense of a Plastic Surgeon's Worst Nightmare

BACKGROUND

Postrhytidectomy hemifacial paralysis is a frightening clinical condition affecting the proximal facial nerve and most often associated with Bell's palsy. Associated symptoms are common and include auditory, salivary, vestibular, and gustatory complaints.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to provide increased awareness of postrhytidectomy hemifacial paralysis secondary to Bell's palsy in the plastic surgery community.

METHODS

Following a roundtable discussion with the senior author's (J.C.G.) plastic surgery colleagues located all over the world, 8 surgeons reported having had firsthand experience with hemifacial paralysis in patients following facelift. Descriptions of their cases, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative courses were collected and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 10 cases of postrhytidectomy hemifacial paralysis were analyzed based on results of a clinical questionnaire. Eight of the 10 cases involved all facial nerve branches, with 2 cases sparing the marginal mandibular branch. The vast majority of cases were referred to a neurologist and steroids initiated. Two patients were returned to the operating room for exploration. Associated symptoms reported included pain in the ear, hearing loss, ocular symptoms such as tearing or dryness, vestibular symptoms such as vertigo, changes in taste, and in 1 patient an electric-shock type sensation to the face.

CONCLUSIONS

Hemifacial paralysis associated with Bell's palsy following rhytidectomy is a rare but known clinical entity that should be included in the preoperative informed consent process before facelift. Current management trends are neurology referral and steroid initiation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Superior Vector Plication of the Mobile Anterior Midface: The Delta Facelift

BACKGROUND

Traditional plication techniques have been ineffective in addressing the anterior midface when compared to the sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) "deep plane" approaches. However, by moving the plication much closer to the mobile medial fat tissues, a more effective and long-lasting plication can be accomplished without releasing the SMAS layer.

OBJECTIVES

The authors' "Delta facelift" approach combines a rotation vertical advancement of the midface fat with a dual-vector platysmaplasty and deep cervicoplasty as indicated for a harmoniously youthful neck.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent facial rejuvenation with the Delta facelift technique between January 1, 2012, and May 30, 2021, for patient demographics, procedure details, outcomes, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients underwent Delta facelift (273 females, 10 males). The average age was 60.8 years old. Primary facelift was performed in 229 patients, whereas 54 facelifts were secondary or further procedures. Adjunctive procedures included autologous fat grafting (93%), blepharoplasty (52%), and skin rejuvenating procedures (35%). There were 11 self-resolving neuropraxias, 6 minor hematomas, and 6 infections. Nine patients underwent repeat Delta facelift at an average of 9.3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delta rotation vertical advancement of the anterior facial fat counters the descent and deflation associated with facial aging. Dual-vector platysmaplasty, with or without myotomy, effectively manages the jowl and delineates the jawline. Addition of deep cervicoplasty is recommended for patients with oblique necks or those with subplatysmal volume excess.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

The Gliding Brow Lift

Subcutaneous undermining for brow lifting is not a new technique, but the gliding brow lift is evolutionary in the sense that it can be done through 1 or 2 tiny incisions and the brow shape maintained with transcutaneous running sutures (the hemostatic net). Undermining over the frontalis muscle and galea is performed using blunt dissectors and the lifting is done with superior traction, holding the brow in the desired shape with the hemostatic net.

Preoperative Risk Factors and Complication Rates of Breast Augmentation With Fat Grafting

BACKGROUND

The current literature on the complications and risk factors of autologous fat grafting (AFG) for breast augmentation is scant and inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to use a large, multicenter database to determine the major complications and risk factors of patients undergoing breast augmentation with AFG in comparison to breast augmentation with implants.

METHODS

Patients undergoing breast augmentation with AFG as well as with implants between January 2, 2017 and July 31, 2019 were identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major complication(s) requiring emergency department visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 45 days postoperatively. Age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, facility, ASA class, and anesthetic type were evaluated as risk factors.

RESULTS

Among the 76,128 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 789 (1.0%) underwent breast augmentation with AFG, in comparison to 18,544 (24.3%) patients with implants. The incidence of any major complication in the AFG cohort and implant cohort was 3.2% and 2.3%, respectively. Infection was significantly higher in the AFG cohort (1.1% vs 0.5%). Tobacco users were more likely to have any complication, infection, and pulmonary dysfunction/hypoxia on univariate analysis. ASA Class III/IV was more likely to have any complication and infection. On multivariate analysis, smoking was an independent risk factor for any complication (relative risk = 17.1) and infection (relative risk = 20.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Infection and hematoma are the most common major complications in breast augmentation with AFG. Tobacco use is the only independent risk factor for overall complications and infection. Breast augmentation with AFG has a higher infection rate than augmentation with implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Incidence and Preoperative Risk Factors for Major Complications After Capsulectomy: Analysis of 3048 Patients

BACKGROUND

Although there are many indications for periprosthetic breast capsulectomy, heightened public attention surrounding breast implant illness has resulted in increased rates of capsulectomy.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the incidence of major complications and risk factors associated with capsulectomy.

METHODS

From an examination of a prospectively enrolled cosmetic surgery insurance database, CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL), patients undergoing capsulectomy between January 2, 2017 and July 31, 2019 were identified. Outcomes measured included the occurrence of and risk factors for major complication(s) necessitating an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or reoperation within 45 postoperative days.

RESULTS

Among 76,128 patients evaluated, 3048 (4.0%) underwent capsulectomy. There was a significant increase in number of capsulectomies following January 6, 2019 (2.7/day vs 5.2/day, P < 0.05). Capsulectomy patients were more likely to have any complication and specifically hematoma than those undergoing breast implant removal or replacement without capsulectomy (2.8% vs 1.9% and 1.6% vs 0.9%, respectively, P < 0.05). Eighty-four (2.8%) developed at least 1 complication. The most common complications included hematoma (1.6%) followed by infection (0.5%). American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III/IV was an independent risk factor for any complication and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and office-based surgical suites were risk factors for infection.

CONCLUSIONS

A growing number of capsulectomies are being performed. The most common major complication is hematoma. Patients undergoing capsulectomy experience a higher complication rate than those undergoing breast implant removal or replacement without capsulectomy. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential for major complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

The Effect of Smoking in the Cosmetic Surgery Population: Analysis of 129,007 Patients

Background

Smoking has been associated with several postoperative adverse outcomes across multiple surgical disciplines, but the literature is limited for aesthetic surgical procedures.

Objectives

To compare complication rates between smokers and nonsmokers undergoing common cosmetic procedures, identify specific cosmetic procedures where smoking increases the risk of complications, and evaluate smoking as an independent risk factor for major complications following aesthetic surgery.

Methods

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Smoking was evaluated as a risk factor for major complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate regression analysis was performed controlling for the effects of age, gender, body mass index, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures.

Results

Of the 129,007 patients, 10,621 (8.2%) were smokers. All procedures examined, except breast augmentation, were more frequently performed in the nonsmoker cohort. Overall major complications were similar between smokers and nonsmokers (2.0% vs 1.9%, P = 0.57). In univariate analysis, surgical site infections (0.6% vs 0.5%, P = 0.04) were significantly higher among smokers, but suspected venous thromboembolism (0.2% vs 0.1%, P = 0.01) was significantly higher among nonsmokers. Notably, smokers had a higher risk of major complications after body procedures (2.9% vs 1.0%, P = 0.01), as well as thigh lifts (23.8% vs 3.6%, P < 0.01) and male breast surgery (3.7% vs 1.4%, P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, smoking was found to be an independent predictor of surgical site infections (relative risk 1.61, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Smoking is an independent risk factor of major surgical site infections following aesthetic surgery. Body procedures, as well as thigh lifts and male breast surgery, have higher complication rates in smokers.

Level of Evidence 2

Aesthetic Surgical Procedures in Men: Major Complications and Associated Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

The number of men undergoing cosmetic surgery is increasing in North America.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications in males undergoing cosmetic surgery, compare the complication profiles between men and women, and identify specific procedures that are associated with higher risk of complications in males.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Gender specific procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major complication in males requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures.

RESULTS

Of the 129,007 patients, 54,927 underwent gender nonspecific procedures, of which 5801 (10.6%) were males. Women showed a higher mean age (46.4 ± 14.1 vs 45.2 ± 16.7 years, P < 0.01). Men had a higher BMI (27.2 ± 4.7 vs 25.7 ± 4.9 kg/m2, P < 0.01), and were more likely to be smokers (7.1% vs 5.7%, P < 0.01) when compared to women. Men demonstrated similar overall major complication rates compared to women (2.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.97). When specific complications were analyzed further, men had higher hematoma rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection. Additionally, major complications after abdominoplasty, facelift surgery, and buttock augmentation were noted to preferentially affect males. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of major complications in males included BMI (RR 1.05), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 3.47), and combined procedures (RR 2.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Aesthetic surgery in men is safe with low major complication rates. Modifiable predictors of complications included BMI and combined procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2

Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Hematomas in Aesthetic Surgery: Analysis of 129,007 Patients

BACKGROUND

Postoperative hematomas are one of the most frequent complications following aesthetic surgery. Identifying risk factors for hematoma has been limited by underpowered studies from single institution experiences.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the incidence and identify independent risk factors for postoperative hematomas following cosmetic surgery utilizing a prospective, multicenter database.

METHODS

A prospectively enrolled cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major hematomas requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify potential risk factors for hematomas including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures.

RESULTS

Of 129,007 patients, 1180 (0.91%) had a major hematoma. Mean age (42.0 ± 13.0 years vs 40.9 ± 13.9 years, P < 0.01) and BMI (24.5 ± 5.0 kg/m2 vs 24.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2, P < 0.01) were higher in patients with hematomas. Males suffered more hematomas than females (1.4% vs 0.9%, P < 0.01). Hematoma rates were higher in patients undergoing combined procedures compared to single procedures (1.1% vs 0.8%, P < 0.01), and breast procedures compared to body/extremity or face procedures (1.0% vs 0.8% vs 0.7%, P < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of hematoma included age (Relative Risk [RR] 1.01), male gender (RR 1.98), the procedure being performed in a hospital setting rather than an office-based setting (RR 1.68), combined procedures (RR 1.35), and breast procedures rather than the body/extremity and face procedures (RR 1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Major hematoma is the most common complication following aesthetic surgery. Male patients and those undergoing breast or combined procedures have a significantly higher risk of developing hematomas.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Safety of Cosmetic Surgery in Adolescent Patients

Background

Limited surgical literature currently exists that evaluates postoperative complications after cosmetic surgery in adolescents.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of major postoperative complications in adolescent patients undergoing cosmetic surgery and compare their complication rates to older patients.

Methods

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgical procedures between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Demographics, clinical characteristics, surgical procedures, and major complications in adolescent patients (age 10-19 years) and older patients (≥20 years old) were compared. Risk factors analyzed included age, gender, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures.

Results

Overall, 3519 adolescents and 124,409 older patients underwent cosmetic surgical procedures. The adolescent cohort contained more men (20.0% vs 6.0%, P < 0.01), lower mean body mass index (22.6 ± 4.1 vs 24.4 ± 4.6, P < 0.01), lower prevalence of diabetes (0.8% vs 1.9%, P <0.01), and fewer smokers (5.9% vs 8.3%, P < 0.01) compared to the older patient cohort. Most commonly adolescent patients underwent breast followed by face and body procedures. Overall adolescent patients demonstrated a lower incidence of major postoperative complications compared to older patients after single (0.6% vs 1.5%, P < 0.01) and combined (1.2% vs 3%, P = 0.03) cosmetic procedures. Adolescent patients had lower complications rates after face, breast, and body procedures compared to the older cohort. The most common postoperative complications in adolescent patients were hematoma (0.34%) and infection (0.28%).

Conclusions

Cosmetic surgical procedures in adolescent patients are safe with a lower rate of major postoperative complications compared to older patients.

Level of Evidence

2.

FACE-Q Eye Module for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cosmetic Eye Treatments

Importance

Aesthetic eye treatments can dramatically change a person's appearance, but outcomes are rarely measured from the patient perspective. The patient perspective could be measured using an eye-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

Objective

To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of FACE-Q scales and an adverse effect checklist designed to measure outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Pretreatment and posttreatment patients 18 years and older who had undergone facial aesthetic procedures were recruited from plastic surgery clinics in United States and Canada and completed FACE-Q scales between June 6, 2010, and July 14, 2014. We used Rasch Measurement Theory, a modern psychometric approach, to refine the scales and to examine psychometric properties.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The FACE-Q Eye Module, which has 4 scales that measure appearance of the eyes, upper and lower eyelids, and eyelashes. Scale scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The module also includes a checklist measuring postblepharoplasty adverse effects.

Results

Overall, 233 patients (81% response rate) 18 years and older participated. Adverse effects included being bothered by eyelid scars, dry eyes, and eye irritation. In Rasch Measurement Theory analysis, each scale's items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Person Separation Index and Cronbach α were greater than or equal to 0.83. Higher scores on the eye scales correlated with fewer adverse effects (range, -0.26 to -0.36). In the pretreatment group, older age correlated with lower scores (range, -0.42 to -0.51) on the scales measure appearance of the eyes and upper and lower eyelids. Compared with the pretreatment group, posttreatment participants reported significantly better scores on the scales measuring appearance of eyes overall, as well as upper and lower eyelids.

Conclusions and Relevance

The FACE-Q Eye Module can be used in clinical practice, research and quality improvement to collect evidence-based outcomes data.

Level of Evidence

NA.

Incidence and Preoperative Risk Factors for Major Complications in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Analysis of 4978 Patients

Background

Rhinoplasty remains one of the most common aesthetic procedures performed in the United States. Current literature on rhinoplasty complications is inconclusive and is based on retrospective reviews and small cohorts.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence and identify predictive risk factors for major complications following rhinoplasty alone or in combination with other aesthetic operations in a large, prospective, multicenter database study.

Methods

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing rhinoplasty between May 2008 and May 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications, defined as complications requiring an emergency room visit, hospital admission, or a reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures.

Results

A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 4978 (3.9%) underwent a rhinoplasty. The overall complication rate was 0.7% (n = 37). Hematoma was the most common complication (0.2%), followed by infection (0.2%), and pulmonary complications (0.1%). Age ≥40 years was found to be an independent risk factor for developing complications. Age ≥40 years was found to have a relative risk of 2.05 (P = 0.04) for any major complication. Complications increased from 0.58% in rhinoplasty alone cases to 1.02% (P < 0.05) with the addition of 1 other body region to 2.09% with the addition of 2 other body regions (P < 0.05). The risk of pulmonary complications increased from 0.1% to 1% (P < 0.05) with the addition of rhinoplasty with 2 other body regions. Gender, type of facility, smoking status, and BMI ≥25 did not appear to significantly impact the risk for major complications.

Conclusions

The major complication rate following rhinoplasty remains low. The risk is increased with age ≥40 years and with the addition of other cosmetic procedures. Pulmonary complications, although rare, do occur, and also increase when combining rhinoplasty with other aesthetic surgery. These findings are important to consider when planning rhinoplasty and educating patients on the safety of combined aesthetic surgeries.

Level of Evidence

2.

Cosmetic Liposuction: Preoperative Risk Factors, Major Complication Rates, and Safety of Combined Procedures

BACKGROUND

Liposuction is among the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures, and is being performed increasingly as an adjunct to other procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To report the incidence and risk factors of significant complications after liposuction, and to determine whether adding liposuction to other cosmetic surgical procedures impacts the complication risk.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients who underwent liposuction between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures.

RESULTS

Of the 31,010 liposuction procedures, only 11,490 (37.1%) were performed as a solitary procedure. Liposuction alone had a major complication rate of 0.7% with hematoma (0.15%), pulmonary complications (0.1%), infection (0.1%), and confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) (0.06%) being the most common. Independent predictors of major complications included combined procedures (Relative Risk (RR) 4.81), age (RR 1.01), BMI (RR 1.05), and procedures performed in hospitals (RR 1.36). When examining specifically other aesthetic procedures performed alone or with liposuction, combined procedures had a higher risk of confirmed VTE (RR 5.65), pulmonary complications (RR 2.72), and infection (RR 2.41), but paradoxically lower hematoma risk (RR 0.77) than solitary procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Liposuction performed alone is a safe procedure with a low risk of major complications. Combined procedures, especially on obese or older individuals, can significantly increase complication rates. The impact of liposuction on the risk of hematoma in combined procedures needs further investigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2

Aesthetic Breast Surgery and Concomitant Procedures: Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Complications in 73,608 Cases

Background

Major complications following aesthetic breast surgery are uncommon and thus assessment of risk factors is challenging.

Objectives

To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications following aesthetic breast surgery and concomitant procedures.

Methods

A prospective cohort of patients who enrolled into the CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL) insurance program and underwent aesthetic breast surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified. Major complications (requiring reoperation, readmission, or emergency room visit) within 30 days of surgery were recorded. Risk factors including age, smoking, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures were evaluated.

Results

Among women, augmentation was the most common breast procedure (n = 41,651, 58.6%) followed by augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. Overall, major complications occurred in 1.46% with hematoma (0.99%) and infection (0.25%) being most common. Augmentation-mastopexy had a higher risk of complications, particularly infection (relative risk [RR] 1.74, P < 0.01), than single breast procedures. Age was the only significant predictor for hematomas (RR 1.01, P < 0.01). Increasing age (RR 1.02, P = 0.03) and BMI (RR 1.09, P < 0.01) were risk factors for infection. Concomitant abdominoplasty was performed in 4162 (5.8%) female patients and was associated with increased risk of complications compared to breast procedures or abdominoplasty performed alone. Among men, correction of gynecomastia was the most common breast procedure (n = 1613, 64.6%) with a complication rate of 1.80% and smoking as a risk factor (RR 2.73, P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Incidence of major complications after breast cosmetic surgical procedures is low. Risk factors for major complications include increasing age and BMI. Combining abdominoplasty with any breast procedure increases the risk of major complications.

Level of Evidence

2.

Venous Thromboembolism in the Cosmetic Patient: Analysis of 129,007 Patients

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most feared postoperative complications in cosmetic surgery. The true rate of VTE in this patient population remains largely unknown with current American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) prophylaxis recommendations partially extrapolated from other surgical specialties.

Objectives

This study analyzed the risk factors for VTE in cosmetic surgical procedures.

Methods

A prospective cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of a clinically significant VTE within 30 days of surgery. Risk factors analyzed included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures.

Results

A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 116 (0.09%) had a confirmed VTE. Combined procedures had a significantly higher overall rate of VTE compared to solitary procedures (0.20% vs 0.04%, P < .01). On multivariate logistic regression, significant risk factors for VTE (P < .05) included body procedures (RR 13.47), combined procedures (RR 2.4), increasing BMI (RR 1.06), and age (RR 1.02). Gender, smoking, diabetes, and type of surgical facility were not found to be significant risk factors. Face procedures (0.01%) and breast procedures (0.01%) had the lowest VTE rates, followed by combined face/body (0.16%), body procedures (0.21%), and combined body/breast procedures (0.28%).

Conclusions

The incidence of VTE after cosmetic procedures is relatively low. However, the risk increases with combined procedures as well as with particular body areas, most notably trunk and extremities. Equally, significant patient risk factors exist, including BMI and age.

Is Office-Based Surgery Safe? Comparing Outcomes of 183,914 Aesthetic Surgical Procedures Across Different Types of Accredited Facilities

BACKGROUND

There has been a dramatic rise in office-based surgery. However, due to wide variations in regulatory standards, the safety of office-based aesthetic surgery has been questioned.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares complication rates of cosmetic surgery performed at office-based surgical suites (OBSS) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and hospitals.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 were identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). Patients were grouped by type of accredited facility where the surgery was performed: OBSS, ASC, or hospital. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complication(s) requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days postoperatively. Potential risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of procedure, and combined procedures were reviewed.

RESULTS

Of the 129,007 patients (183,914 procedures) in the dataset, the majority underwent the procedure at ASCs (57.4%), followed by hospitals (26.7%) and OBSS (15.9%). Patients operated in OBSS were less likely to undergo combined procedures (30.3%) compared to ASCs (31.8%) and hospitals (35.3%, P < .01). Complication rates in OBSS, ASCs, and hospitals were 1.3%, 1.9%, and 2.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, there was a lower risk of developing a complication in an OBSS compared to an ASC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77, P < .01) or a hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.68, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Accredited OBSS appear to be a safe alternative to ASCs and hospitals for cosmetic procedures. Plastic surgeons should continue to triage their patients carefully based on other significant comorbidities that were not measured in this present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Surgical Site Infections in Aesthetic Surgery: Analysis of 129,007 Patients

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports the incidence and risk factors of major SSIs following aesthetic surgery.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major SSI requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for SSIs including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 599 (0.46%) had a major SSI. Mean age (43.8 ± 12.4 years vs 40.9 ± 13.9 years, P < .01) and BMI (27.3 ± 5.5 kg/m² vs 24.3 ± 4.6 kg/m², P < .01) were higher in patients with SSIs. Patients with a SSI were more likely to be smokers (10.5% vs 8.2%, P = .04) and diabetic (4.5% vs 1.8%, P < .01). Females suffered more SSI than males (0.5% vs 0.3%, P = .02). Trunk/extremity procedures had a higher incidence of SSI compared to breast or face procedures (0.9% vs 0.2%, P < .01). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of SSI included age (Relative Risk [RR] 1.01), female gender (RR 1.86), BMI (RR 1.07), smoking (RR 1.61), diabetes (RR 1.58), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 1.39), trunk/extremity procedures (RR 2.42), and combined procedures (RR 1.88).

CONCLUSIONS

SSIs following cosmetic surgical procedures are associated with numerous independent predictors, which should be taken into consideration when counseling patients undergoing aesthetic surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Risk.

Preoperative Risk Factors and Complication Rates of Thighplasty: Analysis of 1,493 Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite a rise in thighplasties, outcomes and risk factors have not been well described.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the incidence and risk factors of major complications following thighplasty in a large, prospective, multicenter database. It further evaluated the safety of combined procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing thighplasty between 2008 and 2013 were identified within the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major complication(s) requiring emergency department visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days postoperatively. Age, gender, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, type of facility, and combination procedures were evaluated as risk factors.

RESULTS

Among the 129,007 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 1493 (0.8%) underwent thighplasty. One thousand and eighty-eight (72.9%) thighplasties were combined with other procedures. Ninety-nine (6.6%) developed at least one complication. The most common complications were infection (2.7%), hematoma (2.1%), suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) (1.1%), fluid overload (0.5%), and confirmed VTE (0.3%). Thighplasties performed in a hospital had higher complications (8.1%) than ambulatory surgical center (6.2%) and office-based surgical suite (3.1%). When thighplasty was performed alone, smoking was an independent risk factor to develop at least one complication (RR = 9.51) and hematoma (RR = 13.48). Compared to thighplasty alone, complication rate did not increase with the addition of concomitant procedures (4.7% vs 7.4%, P = .079).

CONCLUSION

Infection and hematoma are the most common major complications. In thighplasty alone, smoking is the only independent risk factor for overall complications and hematoma formation. The addition of concomitant cosmetic procedures does not increase complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 Risk.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Major Complications in Brachioplasty: Analysis of 2,294 Patients

BACKGROUND

Brachioplasty is a popular procedure to correct upper arm ptosis. However, current literature on complications and risk factors is scant and inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

Using a large, prospective, multicenter database, we report the incidence of major complications and risk factors in patients undergoing brachioplasty.

METHODS

Patients who underwent brachioplasty between 2008 and 2013 were identified from the CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL) database. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major complication(s), defined as complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the procedure. Risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, combined procedures, and type of surgical facility were evaluated using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Within the 129,007 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 2294 (1.8%) underwent brachioplasty. Brachioplasty patients were more likely to be older than 50 years (50.1%), obese (36.3%), diabetic (5.5%), but less likely smokers (5.5%). Major complications occurred in 3.4% brachioplasties with infection (1.7%) and hematoma (1.1%) being most common. Combined procedures, performed in 66.8% cases, had a complication rate of 4.4%, in comparison to 1.3% for brachioplasties performed alone. Combined procedures (RR = 3.58), males (RR = 3.44), and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (RR = 1.92) were identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of any complication. Combined procedures (RR = 12.42), and the male gender (RR = 8.89) increased the risk of hematoma formation.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates from brachioplasty are much lower than previously reported. Hematoma and infection are the most common major complications. Combined procedures, male gender, and BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) are independent risk factors for complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2: Risk.

Micro-Shuttle Lifting of the Neck: A Percutaneous Loop Suspension Method Using a Novel Double-Ended Needle

BACKGROUND

Most younger patients expect to be able to achieve significant improvements and lift to their neck, yet they don't want to undergo extensive surgery. They are now able to do that and restore their youthful appearance thanks to new concepts the techniques through volume redistribution.

OBJECTIVES

The authors' goal was to achieve results that are comparable to a necklift and durable through minimally invasive surgery, utilizing punctures instead of incisions.

METHODS

The concept of micro-shuttle lifting creates a percutaneous hammock to achieve the lifting of all different planes of the neck at once. This is accomplished by putting nonabsorbable sutures on nonundermined platsyma through the use of a double-ended (micro-shuttle) needle and anchoring it to fixed thread loops around the ears. Mitigation of gravitational force is accomplished through the loop suspensions, to obtain effective skin redraping over the suture-created internal splint.

RESULTS

This combined technique for the neck was applied in 221 selected patients between December 2005 and May 2014, with follow-up ranging from 8 months to 7 years. The mean age of the patients was 42.5 years. Outcomes were satisfactory in all but 12 cases, of which 7 found the result inadequate. The operation time for the neck was less than 40 minutes under local anesthesia or local anesthesia with sedation, and the recovery time was 5-7 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainability of this percutaneous procedure does not rely on the suspensions, but rather on the skin redraping in the new position in a similar manner to orthopedic fracture treatment. In selected patients, this safe and simple percutaneous necklifting method can be quickly and easily performed under local anesthesia with long-term durability, low morbidity, and a high patient satisfaction rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4: Therapeutic.

Safety of Aesthetic Surgery in the Overweight Patient: Analysis of 127,961 Patients

BACKGROUND

Nearly 70% of US adults are overweight or obese (body mass index, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2)), and more such patients are seeking aesthetic surgery. Previous studies have evaluated surgical risk in obese (BMI ≥ 30) or morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 40) patients, with mixed results.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates BMI 25 to 29.9 and BMI ≥ 30 as independent risk factors of major complications following aesthetic surgery in a large, prospective, multi-center database.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). BMI was evaluated as a risk factor for major complications, defined as complications requiring an emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the procedure. Multivariate analysis controlled for variables including age, gender, smoking, diabetes, combined procedures, and type of surgical facility.

RESULTS

Of the 127,961 patients, 36.2% had BMI ≥ 25. Overweight patients were more likely to be male (12.5%), diabetic (3.3%), nonsmokers (92.8%), or have multiple procedures (41%). Complication rate steadily increased with BMI: 1.4% (BMI < 18.5); 1.6% (18.5-24.9); 2.3% (25-29.9); 3.1% (30-39.9); 4.2% (≥40). Infection (0.8%), venous thromboembolism (VTE, 0.4%), and pulmonary dysfunction (0.2%) were twice as common among overweight patients. Incidence of hematoma was similar in the two groups (0.9%). Complications following abdominoplasty (3.5%), liposuction (0.9%), lower body lift (8.8%), or combined breast and body procedures (4.2%) were significantly higher in overweight patients. On multivariate analysis, being overweight (BMI 25-29.9) or obese (BMI ≥ 30) were independent predictors of any complication (Relative Risk, RR 1.17 and 1.51), especially infection (RR 1.63 and 2.73), and VTE (RR 1.67 and 2.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Overweight (BMI 25-29.9) and obesity (BMI ≥ 30) are both independent risk factors for post-operative infection and VTE in aesthetic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2: Risk.

Evaluation of Diabetes Mellitus as a Risk Factor for Major Complications in Patients Undergoing Aesthetic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus has been linked with a variety of perioperative adverse events across surgical disciplines. There is a paucity of studies systematically examining risk factors, including diabetes, and complications of aesthetic surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare incidence and type of complications between diabetic and non-diabetic patients undergoing various aesthetic surgical procedures, to identify specific procedures where diabetes significantly increases risk of complications, and to study diabetes as an independent risk factor for major complications following aesthetic surgery.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 129,007 patients who enrolled into the CosmetAssure insurance program and underwent cosmetic surgical procedures between May 2008 and May 2013 were reviewed. Diabetes was evaluated as risk factor for major complications, requiring hospital admission, emergency room visit, or a reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate regression analysis was performed controlling for the effects of age, smoking, obesity, gender, type of procedures, and surgical facility.

RESULTS

Overall, 2506 patients (1.9%) had a major complication. Diabetics had significantly more complications compared to non-diabetics (3.1% vs 1.9%, P < 0.01). In univariate analysis, infectious (1.1% vs 0.5%, P < 0.01) and pulmonary (0.3% vs 0.1%, P < 0.01) complications were significantly higher among diabetics. Notably, diabetics had higher risks of complication in body cases (4.3% vs 2.6%, P < 0.01) and specifically abdominoplasty (6.1% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, diabetes was found to be an independent risk factor of any complication (relative risk 1.31, P = 0.03) and infection (relative risk 1.70, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes is an independent risk factor of major complications, particularly infection, after aesthetic surgical procedures.

Vertical Sculpted Pillar Reduction Mammaplasty in 317 Patients: Technique, Complications, and BREAST-Q Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The senior author (JCG) has described the vertical sculpted pillar breast reduction.

OBJECTIVES

This manuscript aimed to compare this technique's safety profile to other established techniques via complication rate reporting. Few studies have utilized the BREAST-Q for long-term outcomes reporting in bilateral reduction mammaplasty patients. BREAST-Q outcome comparisons, between cosmetic and insurance-based breast reduction cohorts, have not been previously reported.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent reduction mammaplasty using the vertical sculpted pillar technique. The BREAST-Q postoperative reduction mammaplasty module was administered. Complication rates and outcomes data were compared among patient cohorts distinguished by pedicle, scar pattern, and payor population. Statistically significant differences were set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Compared to the superior pedicle, use of the superomedial pedicle statistically increased rates of postoperative fat necrosis in this series. Complication rates did not differ among scar patterns, but use of a J, L-shaped, or short-T scar decreased the need for secondary/revisional surgery. Cosmetic and insurance-based outcomes did not differ in any domain of the postoperative reduction mammaplasty BREAST-Q module.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications data for the vertical sculpted pillar reduction mammaplasty were comparable to published results for other techniques. Complication rates are unaffected by scar pattern. Superomedial pedicle selection and larger insurance-based reductions may predispose to statistically significant increases in fat necrosis compared to use of the superior pedicle. Payor source neither affects the majority of complication rates, nor BREAST-Q satisfaction and quality of life domains. This information can be used to improve management of expectations during the preoperative consultation process.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Therapeutic.

Preoperative Risk Factors and Complication Rates in Facelift: Analysis of 11,300 Patients

BACKGROUND

Facelift (rhytidectomy) is a prominent technique for facial rejuvenation with 126 713 performed in the United States in 2014. Current literature on facelift complications is inconclusive and derives from retrospective studies.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports the incidence and risk factors of major complications following facelift in a large, prospective, multi-center database. It compares complications of facelifts done alone or in combination with other cosmetic surgical procedures.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing facelift between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications, defined as complications requiring emergency room (ER) visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the procedure. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated risk factors including age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, combined procedures, and type of surgical facility.

RESULTS

Of the 129 007 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 11 300 (8.8%) underwent facelifts. Facelift cohort had more males (8.8%), diabetics (2.7%), elderly (mean age 59.2 years) and obese (38.5%) induviduals, but fewer smokers (4.8%). Combined procedures accounted for 57.4% of facelifts. Facelifts had a 1.8% complication rate, similar to the rate of 2% associated to other cosmetic surgeries. Hematoma (1.1%) and infection (0.3%) were most common. Combined procedures had up to 3.7% complication rate compared to 1.5% in facelifts alone. Male gender (relative risk 3.9) and type of facility (relative risk 2.6) were independent predictors of hematoma. Combined procedures (relative risk 3.5) and BMI ≥ 25 (relative risk 2.8) increased infection risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Rhytidectomy is a very safe procedure in the hands of board-certified plastic surgeons. Hematoma and infection are the most common major complications. Male gender, BMI ≥ 25, and combined procedures are independent risk factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2: Risk.

Safety of Cosmetic Procedures in Elderly and Octogenarian Patients

BACKGROUND

The proportion of elderly patients in North America is increasing. This has resulted in an increased number of elderly patients undergoing cosmetic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of postoperative complications in elderly patients (age ≥65) undergoing elective aesthetic plastic surgical procedures compared with younger patients.

METHODS

A total of 183,914 cosmetic surgical procedures were reviewed using the prospectively enrolled cohort of patients in the CosmetAssure database. Comorbidities and postoperative complications in elderly and younger patient groups were recorded and compared. A separate analysis of postoperative complications was performed in the octogenarian subgroup (age ≥80).

RESULTS

A total of 6786 elderly patients who underwent cosmetic procedures were included in the study. Mean ages (±standard deviation) in elderly and younger patients were 69.1 ± 4.1 and 39.2 ± 12.5 years, respectively. The elderly patient population had more men, a higher mean body mass index (BMI), a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM), and fewer smokers compared with the younger patients. The overall postoperative complication rate was not significantly different between elderly and younger patients. When stratified by type of cosmetic procedure, only abdominoplasty was associated with a higher postoperative complication rate in elderly compared with younger patients. The most common postoperative complications in elderly patients were hematoma and infection. The overall postoperative complication rate in octogenarians was 2.2%, which was not significantly different from the younger population.

CONCLUSIONS

Cosmetic procedures in elderly patients, including octogenarians, remain safe with an acceptable complication rate compared to younger patients.

Preoperative Saline Implant Deflation in Revisional Aesthetic Breast Surgery

BACKGROUND

Preoperative saline deflation is a clinically useful intervention in revisional breast surgery. It allows suspensory ligament recovery, reveals true glandular volume, and simplifies mastopexy markings. Presently unknown are the volumetric changes that occur after deflation.

OBJECTIVES

The authors report the three-dimensional (3D) changes that occur with preoperative deflation prior to revisional breast surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed available charts of revisional breast surgery patients who underwent preliminary saline implant deflation. Our protocol is deflation 4 weeks prior to revision. Three weeks following deflation, the patient is evaluated to finalize the operative plan, including the need for implants, mastopexy, and adjunctive procedures. A subset underwent 3D imaging to quantify the volumetric changes over the 3-week deflation period.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2014, 55 patients underwent saline implant deflation prior to 57 revisional surgeries. Seventeen were revised without implants and 40 with implants. The 3D subset of 10 patients showed a mean 15.2% volume increase and 0.18 cm notch-to-nipple distance decrease over the 3 weeks following deflation and prior to definitive surgical correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast volume increases and the notch-to-nipple distance decreases during the 3-week interval prior to reoperation. This "elastic breast recoil" occurs after the mass effect of the implant is removed, resulting in recovery of stretched suspensory ligaments and gland reexpansion. We believe 4 weeks is optimal for gland normalization. Ideal candidates include patients requiring secondary mastopexy without implants, implant downsizing in the same pocket, and secondary augmentation mastopexy. Preoperative saline deflation and 3D analyses are useful for preoperative planning in reoperative breast surgery.

Breast sensitivity before and after the L short-scar mammaplasty

BACKGROUND

Breast sensitivity preservation is among the aims of modern breast surgery. Large-volume resection, extensive undermining, and resections at the breast base have been associated with breast sensitivity alterations. The L short-scar mammaplasty technique is designed to preserve breast sensitivity by resection of tissue in the middle and inferior portions of the breast, but specifically dissection and preservation of the breast lateral neurovascular pedicle. Using this technique, a prospective study was designed for measurement of breast sensitivity quantitatively and subjectively to determine whether different resection volumes of the breast correlate with alteration of sensitivity postoperatively.

METHODS

This study compared the sensitivity of 125 breasts of 64 consecutive patients who underwent mastopexy or breast reduction with the L short-scar mammaplasty technique. Nine points were tested with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments: the nipple and cardinal points on the areola and skin. The tests were performed by the same examiner 1 day before surgery and then 6 and 12 months after surgery. The breasts were divided into three groups according to the resected volume as follows: group A (≤200 g), group B (201-400 g), and group C (>400 g). The patients also were asked to complete written surveys 12 months postoperatively, and the response rate was 100%.

RESULTS

Before surgery, larger breasts were observed to have less sensitivity in the areola (groups B and C, P<0.001) and skin (group C, P<0.001). After 12 months, no correlation was found between larger resected volumes and less breast sensitivity. The sensitivity of the nipple-areola complex in all the groups reached levels equal to the preoperative measurement within 12 months after surgery. After 6 and 12 months, significant improvement in skin breast sensitivity with resections greater than 200 g (group B, P=0.002; group C, P<0.001) was observed. After 12 months, 66.4% of the patients and 94.4% of the group C patients (average resection, 499 g) reported equal or better nipple-areolar sensitivity compared with preoperative sensibility. No patient reported areas of areola or nipple insensitivity.

CONCLUSION

After the L short-scar mammaplasty, breast sensitivity to pressure in most cases returns to preoperative levels or improves primarily in those with larger breasts. The data of this prospective study contradict the misconception that mammaplasty techniques with resections at the breast base leave the patient with reduced breast sensitivity because the fundamental neural pathways, such as the lateral neurovascular pedicle, are preserved.

Anterior Thoracic Hypoplasia: A Separate Entity from Poland Syndrome

SUMMARY

Women presenting with anterior thoracic depression, breast hypoplasia, and subsequent asymmetry are often diagnosed with Poland syndrome regardless of pectoralis involvement, or are placed in the generic category of breast asymmetry or skeletal dysplasias. Recently, though, the term "sunken chest" has been used to describe forms of chest wall depression that previously may have fallen under generic skeletal dysplasias. The authors believe that, combined with hypoplasia of the ipsilateral breast, superior location of the nipple-areola complex compared with the contralateral side, and normal pectoralis muscles, this represents a previously undefined and real condition called anterior thoracic hypoplasia. During the past 4 years, the authors have treated eight women who have presented with a diagnosis of Poland syndrome or pectus excavatum, all of whom share the same characteristics-unilateral sunken anterior chest wall, hypoplasia of the breast, superiorly placed nipple-areola complex, normal pectoralis muscle, and normal sternal position. All of the patients underwent correction of breast asymmetry and unilateral anterior thoracic hypoplasia with augmentation mammaplasty, a method that when tailored for each side yields good aesthetic results. The average age of the patients was 31 years and the average chest size was 34. Cup size, as measured by the patient's standard bra, was a B on the nonaffected side in all patients and an A on the affected side in all patients except one. Of the eight patients, seven had the right anterior chest and breast involved, whereas one patient had involvement on the left. For all of the patients, the nipple and areola of the hypoplastic side were smaller and in a more superior position compared with the contralateral side on visual inspection. In the eight patients, a total of 19 augmentations (15 primary augmentations and four revisions) and one mastopexy were performed. Ten inframammary-fold approaches and nine periareolar approaches were used, and all of the implants were placed in a partial submuscular position, except for two implants placed in a subglandular position that were converted to partial submuscular positions in a secondary setting. In all the women, the sternal head of the pectoralis muscle was present and the pectoralis muscle appeared to be equal in size compared to the contralateral side. Nine different types of implants were used. Average implant fill volume measured 412 cc on the hypoplastic side and 257 cc on the contralateral side. In follow-up, all of the patients were satisfied with their operation and rated their aesthetic outcome as very good to excellent. The authors believe that anterior thoracic hypoplasia is a real, previously misdiagnosed and undescribed condition, and that both chest wall and breast deformities can be corrected safely and with excellent results using proper augmentation planning and implant selection.

The art and science of autologous breast reconstruction

Three significant advances are responsible for the recent evolution in breast reconstruction. The first of these is the introduction of the transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap, which made reliable autologous breast reconstruction a reality. The subsequent application of microsurgical principles to this procedure brought further refinements in terms of improved blood supply and lessened donor site morbidity. Finally, the wide acceptance of the skin-sparing mastectomy by oncologic surgeons has allowed further progress in the aesthetic possibilities that can be realized by the plastic surgeon. The authors discuss each of these factors and provide an overview of the current state of the art of autologous free tissue breast reconstruction.

A new resorbable tack fixation technique for endoscopic brow lifts

The endoscopic brow lift is now widely accepted in aesthetic plastic surgery, and various fixation techniques have been described in the literature. New developments and technology have expanded the use of resorbable devices in different surgical specialties, including plastic surgery. The authors present a technique that offers simple, fast, and reliable forehead fixation for endoscopic brow lifts using resorbable tacks. Successful facial rejuvenation was obtained in the majority of the patients without complications, need for follow-up visits to tighten the flap fixation system, or secondary procedures to extract the fixation system.

Breast reconstruction with free-tissue transfer

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the rationale for the use of free tissue transfer for breast reconstruction. 2. Understand the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of this method of reconstruction. The authors discuss the indications, advantages, and disadvantages of free-tissue transfer for breast reconstruction. The most common free flaps used today are individually discussed. Details about indications, contraindications, pertinent anatomy, pedicle characteristics, flap pliability, perfusion characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages for each of these flaps are presented. Details pertaining to the more common recipient vessels are presented. Future considerations are also briefly discussed.

Cervicofacial rejuvenation using ultrasound-assisted lipectomy

This article discusses a technique of cervicofacial rejuvenation that involves ultrasound-assisted lipectomy. This method is indicated for those patients who might be early candidates for a rhytidectomy, and/or those with an adipose volume excess in the lower facial and cervical areas. The application of ultrasonic energy stimulates skin retraction and allows for the superficial fat to be more safely accessed than can be accomplished with conventional liposuction methods. This technique, along with a retrospective analysis of the first 26 cases treated with the technique, will be presented in this article.

Ultrasound-assisted lipectomy using the solid probe: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive cases

Ultrasound-assisted lipectomy using the solid probe is a predictable and safe method that can yield excellent results. This method is particularly useful and is indicated when the subdermis must be approached to smooth out surface irregularities and/or to stimulate skin retraction. The authors present their method using the solid probe and a retrospective study of their first 100 consecutive cases. The indications for using the solid probe, its advantages and disadvantages, associated complications, and representative cases are presented.

The solid-probe technique in ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty

The solid-probe ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty technique is a predictable method for obtaining optimal results in body contouring for select patients. Patients with inelastic skin, cellulite, skin laxity, and those undergoing secondary contouring procedures are ideal candidates for the solid-probe technique. The solid probe is thought to be a more efficient fat emulsification device because it imparts more focal ultrasonic energy per amplitude than hollow probes.