Fan Yang1, Zuoliang Qi1, Le Du1, Guodong Song1, Xianlei Zong1, Xiaolei Jin2. 1. The 16th Department, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100144, China. 2. The 16th Department, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 33 Badachu Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing, 100144, China. professor.jin@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aim to measure the zygomatic width and protrusion changes in hard tissue after reduction malarplasty and then calculate facial proportion changes and analyze the relationship between facial proportion changes and patients' satisfaction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our database and selected 36 eligible patients who underwent isolated reduction malarplasty in our department from March 2015 to July 2018. The preoperative and postoperative facial width and protrusion, as well as head height, in hard tissue were measured using ProPlan software. Patients' satisfaction was evaluated by questionnaire. The correlations between the facial proportion changes and patients' satisfaction were analyzed using Spearman correlation analysis. RESULTS: The preoperative and postoperative midface widths were 135.87 ± 4.09 mm and 129.06 ± 4.95 mm. The relative zygomatic protrusion was reduced by 3.29 ± 1.54 mm in the left and 2.88 ± 1.73 mm in the right after surgery. The ratio of the midface width to lower face width changed from 1.43 ± 0.05 to 1.36 ± 0.06 after surgery. And the ratio of the head height to midface width changed from 1.53 ± 0.05 to 1.61 ± 0.05 after surgery. The ratios were indeed close to the ideal ratios we presumed (4:3 and 1.618). Moreover, patients' total and morphology satisfaction were both significantly higher with the postoperative ratio of the midface width to lower face width closer to 4:3 (R = - 0.732, P < 0.001; R = - 0.906, P < 0.001, respectively). But only morphology satisfaction was higher with the ratio of the head height to midface width closer to 1.618 (R = - 0.404, P = 0.014) and the ratio of the postoperative midface to lower face width decreased (R = - 0.434, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We found patients' morphology satisfaction was higher with the proportion of the postoperative midface to lower face width decreased. What's more, the proximity degree between the postoperative facial proportion and the ideal facial proportions we presumed was significantly correlated with patients' high satisfaction. Therefore, 4:3 and 1.618 may be the ideal postoperative facial ratios for the patients who underwent reduction malarplasty. 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 https://www.springer.com/00266.
OBJECTIVE: We aim to measure the zygomatic width and protrusion changes in hard tissue after reduction malarplasty and then calculate facial proportion changes and analyze the relationship between facial proportion changes and patients' satisfaction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our database and selected 36 eligible patients who underwent isolated reduction malarplasty in our department from March 2015 to July 2018. The preoperative and postoperative facial width and protrusion, as well as head height, in hard tissue were measured using ProPlan software. Patients' satisfaction was evaluated by questionnaire. The correlations between the facial proportion changes and patients' satisfaction were analyzed using Spearman correlation analysis. RESULTS: The preoperative and postoperative midface widths were 135.87 ± 4.09 mm and 129.06 ± 4.95 mm. The relative zygomatic protrusion was reduced by 3.29 ± 1.54 mm in the left and 2.88 ± 1.73 mm in the right after surgery. The ratio of the midface width to lower face width changed from 1.43 ± 0.05 to 1.36 ± 0.06 after surgery. And the ratio of the head height to midface width changed from 1.53 ± 0.05 to 1.61 ± 0.05 after surgery. The ratios were indeed close to the ideal ratios we presumed (4:3 and 1.618). Moreover, patients' total and morphology satisfaction were both significantly higher with the postoperative ratio of the midface width to lower face width closer to 4:3 (R = - 0.732, P < 0.001; R = - 0.906, P < 0.001, respectively). But only morphology satisfaction was higher with the ratio of the head height to midface width closer to 1.618 (R = - 0.404, P = 0.014) and the ratio of the postoperative midface to lower face width decreased (R = - 0.434, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We found patients' morphology satisfaction was higher with the proportion of the postoperative midface to lower face width decreased. What's more, the proximity degree between the postoperative facial proportion and the ideal facial proportions we presumed was significantly correlated with patients' high satisfaction. Therefore, 4:3 and 1.618 may be the ideal postoperative facial ratios for the patients who underwent reduction malarplasty. 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 https://www.springer.com/00266.