Kamol Wattanakrai1, Nattawut Chiemchaisri2, Penpun Wattanakrai3. 1. Bangkok Skin-Plastic Surgery Center, 62/196 Paholyothin Road, Anusawaree, Bangkhen, Bangkok, 10220, Thailand. kamolw@gmail.com. 2. Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Division of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thread lifting was first described in the early twentieth century, but for many years it remained a relatively debatable technique due to the unreliability of the long-term results. Very few papers described the long-term follow-up of the patients. Until now there has been no ideal thread that can demonstrate the long-lasting results. METHOD: A long-term study of mesh suspension thread in Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital and Bangkok Skin-Plastic Surgery Center was conducted during February 2016 to December 2018. In all, 21 patients, 20 females and one male, were treated. The follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 2 years. The results were evaluated by both patients themselves and an independent investigator using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale and Marionette Lines Grading Scale at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. RESULTS: No serious complications were involved in all cases. The most frequent complaint was mild to moderate pain at the temporal area at the night of surgery that gradually improved in a few days. The improved result could be maintained up to 1 year among 14 patients (66.6%) and 2 years among eight patients (38%). The follow-up period up to 2 years showed a favorable result. Most cases received the same GAIS scores by patients and those of the investigator. Some patients rated their outcome higher than the investigator. No obvious contradiction in the scores was observed between both groups. CONCLUSION: We performed a long-term clinical study to validate the efficacy of mesh suspension thread. The result showed that this novel thread could provide a long-lasting result up to 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: Thread lifting was first described in the early twentieth century, but for many years it remained a relatively debatable technique due to the unreliability of the long-term results. Very few papers described the long-term follow-up of the patients. Until now there has been no ideal thread that can demonstrate the long-lasting results. METHOD: A long-term study of mesh suspension thread in Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital and Bangkok Skin-Plastic Surgery Center was conducted during February 2016 to December 2018. In all, 21 patients, 20 females and one male, were treated. The follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 2 years. The results were evaluated by both patients themselves and an independent investigator using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale and Marionette Lines Grading Scale at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. RESULTS: No serious complications were involved in all cases. The most frequent complaint was mild to moderate pain at the temporal area at the night of surgery that gradually improved in a few days. The improved result could be maintained up to 1 year among 14 patients (66.6%) and 2 years among eight patients (38%). The follow-up period up to 2 years showed a favorable result. Most cases received the same GAIS scores by patients and those of the investigator. Some patients rated their outcome higher than the investigator. No obvious contradiction in the scores was observed between both groups. CONCLUSION: We performed a long-term clinical study to validate the efficacy of mesh suspension thread. The result showed that this novel thread could provide a long-lasting result up to 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.