Steven B Hopping1, Arjun S Joshi, Neil Tanna, Sasa Janjanin. 1. Division of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Center for Cosmetic Surgery, The George Washington University, 2440 M St NW, Suite 205, Washington, DC 20037, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Facial aging occurs as a result of soft tissue atrophy and resorption of the bony skeleton, which results in a loss of soft tissue volume and laxity of the overlying skin. Volumetric augmentation is a key component of facial rejuvenation surgery, and should be considered of equal importance to soft tissue lifting. Augmentation can be accomplished with synthetic fillers, autologous grafts, soft tissue repositioning techniques, and/or alloplastic implants. Only alloplastic implants, however, provide truly long-term volumetric correction. To date, there have been no large series dealing with the complications and results of implantation performed concurrently with rhytidectomy, which we have termed "volumetric rhytidectomy." We present our experience with 100 patients treated with a combination of malar and chin implants and rhytidectomy, compared to 200 patients who underwent rhytidectomy alone. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients treated with a combination of silicone malar and chin augmentation with rhytidectomy versus patients treated with rhytidectomy alone. Both groups of patients underwent close postoperative evaluation at 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month. All patients were surveyed at 6 months to assess aesthetic satisfaction. Complication rates were noted and tabulated. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate for any differences in the two groups. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2006, 100 patients underwent malar and chin implantation along with rhytidectomy; 200 patients underwent rhytidectomy alone. In the first group, there were a total of 6 cases in which implant removal was necessary, and 2 cases in which revision was required. There were no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) observed between the two groups with respect to major or minor hematoma, seroma, infection, sensory nerve injury, facial nerve injury, hypertrophic scarring, dehiscence, skin sloughing, or revision. CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric rhytidectomy reliably augments the malar and mental areas, allows for subtle skeletal contouring, and results in successful rejuvenation. Rhytidectomy is relatively safe to perform concurrently with silicone augmentation, and does not result in an increased complication rate as compared to rhytidectomy alone.
OBJECTIVES: Facial aging occurs as a result of soft tissue atrophy and resorption of the bony skeleton, which results in a loss of soft tissue volume and laxity of the overlying skin. Volumetric augmentation is a key component of facial rejuvenation surgery, and should be considered of equal importance to soft tissue lifting. Augmentation can be accomplished with synthetic fillers, autologous grafts, soft tissue repositioning techniques, and/or alloplastic implants. Only alloplastic implants, however, provide truly long-term volumetric correction. To date, there have been no large series dealing with the complications and results of implantation performed concurrently with rhytidectomy, which we have termed "volumetric rhytidectomy." We present our experience with 100 patients treated with a combination of malar and chin implants and rhytidectomy, compared to 200 patients who underwent rhytidectomy alone. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients treated with a combination of silicone malar and chin augmentation with rhytidectomy versus patients treated with rhytidectomy alone. Both groups of patients underwent close postoperative evaluation at 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month. All patients were surveyed at 6 months to assess aesthetic satisfaction. Complication rates were noted and tabulated. Statistical analysis was performed to evaluate for any differences in the two groups. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2006, 100 patients underwent malar and chin implantation along with rhytidectomy; 200 patients underwent rhytidectomy alone. In the first group, there were a total of 6 cases in which implant removal was necessary, and 2 cases in which revision was required. There were no statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) observed between the two groups with respect to major or minor hematoma, seroma, infection, sensory nerve injury, facial nerve injury, hypertrophic scarring, dehiscence, skin sloughing, or revision. CONCLUSIONS: Volumetric rhytidectomy reliably augments the malar and mental areas, allows for subtle skeletal contouring, and results in successful rejuvenation. Rhytidectomy is relatively safe to perform concurrently with silicone augmentation, and does not result in an increased complication rate as compared to rhytidectomy alone.
Authors: Kriti Mohan; Joshua A Cox; Ryan M Dickey; Paula Gravina; Anthony Echo; Shayan A Izaddoost; Anh H Nguyen Journal: Semin Plast Surg Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.314