Search

In 2000, Matarasso et al. performed a survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members' face lift practice patterns. Since that publication, the aesthetic marketplace has changed dramatically, as have ancillary face lift techniques. In an attempt to detail these changes, we repeated that original survey, adding questions to address more recent technical issues and advances. The goal of this report was to define current face lift practice patterns, compare current patterns to the previous ones, and define recent advances.A 38-question survey assessing face lift techniques, perioperative management, complications, and concomitant procedures was electronically distributed to a random cohort of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed utilizing the Pearson chi-square test.A total of 251 forms were returned and analyzed. Details of demographics, face lift techniques, ancillary procedures, perioperative care, and complications are presented. Current results were compared to the previously published society member practice patterns delineated in the 2000 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery publication.The basic approach of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members to the face lift operation has not changed dramatically over the past 20 years. The development of operative adjuncts, however, has been positive, including fat grafting techniques, concomitant use of skin resurfacing, and means of minimizing blood loss with tranexamic acid. In certain instances, respondents do not follow evidence-based guidelines for perioperative care. Finally, common complications of practicing members appear to coincide with published retrospective reviews.

Background Asymmetry of the hips and its implication in body contouring procedures has not yet been reported. Hip asymmetry is common in the general population and may account for uneven abdominoplasty scar and the apparent discrepancies in volume following liposuction of the hips and flanks. The goal of this study was to determine the presence of hip asymmetry in women presenting for abdominal contouring surgery. Methods Analysis of preoperative photographs of 100 female patients was performed by three independent plastic surgeons. They were asked to evaluate for hip asymmetry and, when present, determine which side was higher. Adobe Photoshop was also used to objectively measure hip asymmetry. Patients were women with no known history of hip abnormalities; age ranged from 17 to 64 years and the body mass index ranged from 16 to 47 kg/m(2). Results All three plastic surgeon reviewers found that the majority of patients had hip asymmetry, with raters 1, 2, and 3 documenting discrepancies in hip height in 88, 60, and 76 percent of patients, respectively. The interrater reliability was 0.713. Chi-square statistical analysis suggested that the raters were not statistically different from one another (p = 0.086). The objective analysis found asymmetry in 82 percent of patients. Conclusions The results showed that the majority of patients who present for abdominal contouring surgery have asymmetric hips. Patients are usually unaware of the unevenness of their own hips; however, they often notice postoperative discrepancies in scar height after abdominoplasty or volume differences after liposuction.

The use of tobacco-based products, most notably cigarettes, is related directly to wound healing problems and poorer outcomes in plastic surgery. Current abstracts have highlighted the potential complications from nicotine, specifically following plastic surgery in patients who choose to smoke. Recently, products that use electricity to vaporize liquid nitrogen have been gaining popularity. New rules were recently proposed that would give the federal government authority over electronic cigarettes. However, the health-related issues surrounding e-cigarettes are still largely unknown or misunderstood. These issues also extend to their impact on surgical procedures, notably their effect on plastic surgical procedures that rely heavily on the vascularity of either the host wound bed or the replacement tissue.

Patients with prior umbilical stalk detachment, secondary to limited abdominoplasty or prior umbilical hernia repair, may in the future be candidates for full abdominoplasty. In these patients, a circumferential incision around the umbilicus detaches the remaining cutaneous blood supply, prompting concern for umbilical viability. Minimal literature exists to guide clinical decision-making for these patients. Inquiries were made to Louisiana Society of Plastic Surgery members and the Plastic Surgery Education Network online forum of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Metrics obtained included patient age, sex, nature of primary surgery, time between umbilical stalk detachment and secondary full abdominoplasty, complications, and whether rectus plication was performed at the time of secondary surgery. Eleven physicians provided complete documentation for 18 cases. All patients healed without evidence of umbilical ischemia or necrosis. Average patient age was 40.6 years. Average interval between procedures was 3.6 years. Sixty-seven percent of patients had the umbilicus delayed before the secondary procedure, with the median delay time being 18 days. Rectus fascia was plicated during secondary surgery in 72 percent of patients. This is the first reported series of patients undergoing full abdominoplasty after prior umbilical stalk detachment. It is also the first time the Plastic Surgery Education Network online forum has been used to collect research data, highlighting its potential as a valuable research tool. The data set was obtained from a wide range of practices, which allows for consideration of various technical solutions when this or other diverse clinical scenarios are encountered. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, V.

UNLABELLED Statistics reflect that pregnancies are occurring at a later age, multiple births are becoming more common, and a sizeable population--with a keen interest in nutrition, fitness, and a continued desire to retain a youthful figure--is aging. Consequently, postpartum reshaping is a priority for many women, enough so that the phrase "mommy makeover" has entered the vernacular. In this article, the senior author's practice was evaluated to explore patient goals, methods, and outcomes in reshaping the postpartum abdomen. A literature review was conducted to assess the state of the art in methods to meet these goals. The postpartum patient often uses her prepregnancy appearance as a barometer for her postpregnancy goals. Although aging is one force motivating women to pursue abdominoplasty, the majority desires the correction of changes related to pregnancy. The abdomen and breasts are the regions most visibly affected by pregnancy, although numerous aesthetic units of the trunk and surrounding regions concern patients seeking postpartum body contouring and they may be part of the patient's perception and idealization of her appearance. Abdominoplasty is central to postpartum body contouring, and numerous strategies such as concurrent flap, flank, or mons pubis liposuction and waistline enhancement methods are integral components of it. Consideration should also be given to the multiple body areas affected by pregnancy that may enhance the patient's overall appearance. In the appropriate context, multiple procedures can be safely and effectively combined to address the various regions affected by postpartum changes. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, V.

Abdominoplasty and breast surgery are frequently appealing to patients as combined procedures. The practice of combining abdominoplasty with other procedures originates from abdominoplasty performed in conjunction with intraabdominal or gynecologic surgery. Initially, the focus of combined surgery was on ensuring safety and minimizing local (e.g., wound healing) complications. As surgeons began combining abdominoplasty with distant procedures such as breast surgery, because the individual procedures have little adverse impact on one another and are not altered because of the combination, concerns with systemic morbidity surpassed the initial focus on avoiding local complications. Prevention of venous thromboembolism became a paramount concern. The authors perform abdominoplasty in conjunction with other procedures more frequently than in isolation, reflecting broader societal demand. Indeed, because of the effects of pregnancy and aging, abdominoplasty is being performed in conjunction with breast surgery with frequency sufficient to have driven the term "mommy makeover" into mainstream parlance. Consideration regarding length of surgery and the other recommendations in this report allows for the safe and successful execution of this common combination.

BACKGROUND Surgeon observation suggested that mastopexy alone resulted in decreased cup size. The purpose of this investigation was to assess change in cup size in women undergoing mastopexy alone. METHODS A retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience from February of 2002 to May of 2011 was completed. Patients underwent mastopexy alone (specimen weight

BACKGROUND Limited data exist in the literature regarding the general incidence of secondary abdominal contour procedures and secondary abdominoplasty (excluding revisions) or specific recommendations for surgical management of these patients. METHODS The authors performed a retrospective chart review of 562 patients who underwent abdominal contouring procedures (liposuction and/or modified or full abdominoplasty) performed by a single surgeon (A.M.) from January of 2004 until October of 2012. Nonsurgical primary cases, secondary surgery that was revisional in nature, and massive weight loss patients were excluded. RESULTS Seventy-three patients (13.0 percent) underwent secondary abdominal contouring procedures. Forty-six of 73 patients had charts available to be examined in greater detail. Thirty-four of these patients underwent secondary liposuction, whereas 12 of these patients had secondary full abdominoplasty procedures. Secondary operations occurred an average of 4.98 years after the primary procedure (range, 6 months to 15 years). Patients underwent secondary liposuction (n = 34) on average 3.16 years after their initial procedure, significantly sooner than patients who underwent secondary abdominoplasty (n = 12) 8.35 years after their initial procedure (p = 0.002). Patients with a body mass index less than 25 kg/m2 (n = 26) had both secondary liposuction (n = 16) and secondary abdominoplasty (n = 10), whereas all patients who had a body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or greater (n = 20) underwent only secondary liposuction. CONCLUSIONS True secondary abdominal contouring procedures represented 13.0 percent of all abdominal contouring procedures. The most common indication for a secondary procedure was an umbilical-site closure scar. Specific recommendations for surgical management of five common scenarios for secondary abdominal procedures are discussed.

Patients requesting abdominoplasty often have concomitant umbilical hernias and may request simultaneous treatment. The vascularity of the umbilicus is potentially at risk during these combined procedures. In this study, the authors present a technique for treating umbilical hernias at the time of abdominoplasty surgery using the Ventralex hernia patch.A total of 11 female patients with a mean age of 39.4 years (range, 28 to 51 years) undergoing abdominoplasty with umbilical hernia repair with the Ventralex patch were included.The mean body mass index was 27.6 kg/m (range, 20 to 34 kg/m). No vascular compromise of the umbilicus was seen. The hernia repair did not alter the abdominoplasty results. One patient had transient umbilical swelling postoperatively that resolved within 6 months postoperatively.The authors present a series of umbilical hernia repairs in abdominoplasty patients using a minimal access incision by means of the rectus fascia and the Ventralex patch that is fast and reliable and preserves the blood supply to the umbilicus.

The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery recently reported that there were nearly 12 million cosmetic procedures (2.1 million surgical and 9.7 million nonsurgical) performed in the United States in 2004. Almost 900,000 of the nonsurgical procedures were soft-tissue augmentation procedures using hyaluronic acid fillers. Restylane (Medicis Aesthetics, Inc., Scottsdale, Ariz.), nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid, was approved for use in the United States in December of 2003. Although the use of all fillers increased from 2003 to 2004, use of hyaluronic acid fillers increased nearly 700 percent. The dramatic increase in all cosmetic procedures reflects the growing trend, especially with increasing job competition, to maintain a youthful lifestyle and appearance. Basic recommendations for aesthetic use of Restylane were established based on short- and long-term efficacy and safety studies (Medicis Aesthetics, package insert). With the widespread and growing use of Restylane, a cross-sectional panel of experts with extensive clinical experience, including cosmetic dermatologists and surgical specialists (cosmetic, plastic, and ocular), convened to develop consensus guidelines for the use of Restylane. This supplement reviews the aesthetic affects of aging on the face, the role of fillers in facial soft-tissue volume replacement, and general principles for the use of Restylane, including patient comfort and assessment techniques. Specific recommendations for Restylane use in each potential target area, including type of anesthesia, injection techniques, volume for injection, use in combination with other procedures, and expected longevity of corrections, are provided. Techniques for optimizing patient outcomes and satisfaction and for minimizing and managing expected problems and potential complications are described.

A retrospective chart review of 400 abdominal contour operations produced a series of 24 patients who underwent both their primary and then their secondary abdominal contour surgeries with the senior author (Matarasso). The majority of patients were classified and treated according to the abdominoplasty classification system previously described; however, a subgroup could not be categorized according to this system. In this study, the authors identified the secondary abdominal contour surgical experience of one surgeon. A comparison was made between two groups of patients treated for both primary and secondary operations: group I, considered early, less than 18 months after the previous operation; and group II, considered late, 18 or more months after the previous operation. There was a significant difference between groups I and II (chi2 = 4.12, p = 0.05); most patients had their surgical procedures before 18 months. For patients who underwent either a miniabdominoplasty or a full primary abdominoplasty, there was a statistically significant difference between the number of patients treated in group I and the number in group II (Fisher's exact test, D = 0, p = 0.05). Next, the nature of the secondary procedure was determined to be either a revisional procedure or a completely new reoperative procedure. The majority of patients underwent revision or "touch-ups," accomplished with either liposuction alone or in combination with scar revision. There was no significant difference between types of primary and secondary procedures performed in group I or group II. Secondary abdominal contour surgery accounted for 6 percent (24 of 400) of all abdominal contour procedures performed by one surgeon. Complete secondary surgery, performing an additional open procedure, occurred in 21 percent of cases (five of 24). Revision surgery (scar revision or removal of dog-ears) was performed in 29 percent of all cases (seven of 24). There was a 4 percent (one of 24) complication rate requiring operative intervention. This rate is consistent with that reported in the literature for primary abdominal contour surgery. With the overall acceptance of aesthetic surgery increasing, the number of patients undergoing abdominoplasty increasing, an aging population, and the safety of secondary abdominal contour surgery suggested from this review, it is likely that plastic surgeons will see more patients requesting secondary abdominal contour surgery in the future.

Traditionally, lower lid blepharoplasty has been confined to a choice of skin or skin-muscle flap transcutaneous blepharoplasty. In the past decade, in particular, various new techniques and technologies have emerged, altering our ability to treat the lower eyelids. These techniques include transconjunctival blepharoplasty, a variety of canthopexy procedures, fat-conserving or fat-replacing methods, wedge excision, and laser resurfacing techniques, and they allow a more individualized approach based on variations in anatomical features and patient goals. A retrospective review of data for 100 consecutive patients (ranging in age from 30 to 80 years) who underwent lower eyelid procedures during a 12-month period is presented. Procedures were categorized as follows: lower lid blepharoplasty, 35 cases; lower lid transconjunctival blepharoplasty, 27 cases; lower lid transconjunctival blepharoplasty with laser resurfacing, 17 cases; lower lid laser resurfacing, 16 cases; tarsorrhaphy with lower lid operation, three cases; tarsorrhaphy with laser resurfacing, two cases. Two complications of retained fat pads (one medial and one lateral) were encountered and were addressed with a secondary operation using a transconjunctival blepharoplasty approach. The results indicate that laser treatment has become the predominant form of lower eyelid resurfacing and that transconjunctival blepharoplasty is now the most common surgical procedure for the lower eyelid. All of our tarsorrhaphy procedures were performed for patients who had previously undergone surgical treatment of the lower eyelids. An algorithm based on physical findings and these techniques has been developed, for appropriate tailoring of the procedure to each patient's specific concerns. With the availability of a variety of techniques, an individualized approach based on variations in anatomical features is feasible.

SUMMARY The authors present a review of pain management in body-contouring surgery. They also provide personal perspectives and recommendations given the senior author's (A.M.) extensive experience with body-contouring procedures. A review of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations is discussed.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Perform preoperative assessment and patient selection for liposuction surgeries. 2. Explain the differences among the various types of anesthesia and wetting solutions used in liposuction. 3. Identify the available literature about skin-tightening procedures. 4. Convey to patients the complication profile for various modalities of liposuction. 5. Recall important ASPS consensus guidelines when discussing liposuction. SUMMARY The article was prepared to feature recent evidence-based publications pertaining to liposuction. The authors placed special emphasis on the most clinically relevant data. In addition, they highlighted current data regarding liposuction-related fields, including autologous fat transfer and minimally invasive skin tightening.

We report our experience in patients with an abnormal partial thromboplastin time elevation due to factor XI deficiency (Rosenthal syndrome) who presented for aesthetic surgery consideration. Preoperative evaluation included a thorough history, physical examination, coagulation profile, and hematological consultation. Nine of 10 patients underwent 12 elective aesthetic procedures without undue intraoperative or postoperative bleeding. Based on these findings, we stratified patients as low risk or high risk. Low-risk patients were those with greater than 15 percent factor XI levels, or those with 5 to 14 percent factor XI levels but a history of multiple major surgical procedures without bleeding complications. High-risk patients were those with factor XI levels less than 15 percent, history of bleeding either spontaneously or with surgery, and a family history of bleeding diathesis from factor XI deficiency. Low-risk patients had fresh frozen plasma available for the procedure, whereas high-risk patients received fresh frozen plasma 2 hours before surgery. We conclude that (1) in these patients with abnormally high partial thromboplastin time values and no prior known bleeding disorder, we have identified factor XI deficiency as the prevalent coagulopathy; (2) partial thromboplastin time does not necessarily correlate with factor XI levels; (3) patients can be classified as high or low risk for elective surgery based on factor XI levels and prior surgical or family history; (4) recommendations for perioperative management can be made based on this risk profile; and (5) aesthetic surgery can be performed successfully and safely on patients with factor XI deficiency on a case-by-case basis when appropriate guidelines are enforced.

The incidence of complications after reduction mammaplasty without drains was reviewed by analysis of 50 bilateral reduction mammaplasty procedures. Patients ranged in age from 14 to 65 years; the average combined volume removed was 953 g. Eighty-four percent of the patients underwent a Pitanguy technique, and the remaining patients underwent an inferior pedicle or amputative technique with free nipple grafts. Three patients had six complications; one of these patients had three of the complications. Complications included two cases of fat necrosis and one case of wound disruption. One patient had a hematoma with wound disruption and partial nipple loss. There were no cases of infection. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of complications in reduction mammaplasty performed without drains. Incidentally, statistical analysis using the chi-squared test revealed that this series without drains compared favorably with previously published data for reduction mammaplasty using drains. It is concluded that routine closed suction drainage after reduction mammaplasty is unnecessary and should be reconsidered.