Incorporating Nonsurgical Options and Aesthetic Services into Your Facial Plastic Surgery Practice.

The facial plastic surgeon faces increasing competition in the aesthetic world for both surgical and nonsurgical services. Incorporating nonsurgical options in practice, such as "liquid facelifts," aesthetic services, and products, increases both patient satisfaction and office revenue stream. A successful nonsurgical practice can be built with minimal expense by focusing on the most critical and popular options to offer patients.

Adjunctive Procedures in Facelifting.

Rhytidectomy, or facelift in layman's terms, is performed to reverse the appearance of facial aging. A lift can improve volume shifts with age, reposition sagging tissues, and eliminate skin redundancy. There are limitations to what can be accomplished with a facelift alone. Commonly performed adjuncts including surgery to the eyelids or brows, liposuction, and even rhinoplasty can be combined to improve the result. Further options exist that are more commonly overlooked or rarely offered to patients but can greatly enhance the surgeon's ability to remove years from the face. This article will cover some additional options that every facial plastic surgeon should be familiar with and experienced to both describe and perform.

Optimizing Results of Facial Surgery and Patient Satisfaction with Simultaneous Chemical Peels.

Facial antiaging surgery is widely regarded as safe and effective. Current techniques allow us to achieve a balance of restoring youth while minimizing stigmata of surgery to effect a refreshed, natural look. An important component of achieving this goal is to improve the appearance of fine lines and dyschromias which continue to add to the apparent age. Several options exist to improve the appearance of the skin, each with a separate set of indications, advantages, and disadvantages. A medium-depth 35% trichloroacetic acid peel can be safely combined with rejuvenating surgery to enhance patient satisfaction and results with the same downtime and low cost.

Surgical and Nonsurgical Perioral/Lip Rejuvenation: Beyond Volume Restoration.

Lip rejuvenation options have evolved from surgical augmentation with plastic to far more natural options to include fat, tissues, resurfacing, and surgical manipulation of lip borders and contour. An overview of different options contrasts the risks, benefits, costs, and results between available surgical options. The ideal treatment varies from patient to patient, but optimally incorporates numerous simultaneous procedures.

Filling the Midface: Injectables.

Volumizing the face has become commonplace on the facial aesthetic scene, with a rapid explosion of popularity in the field of nonsurgical rejuvenation. Three-dimensional enhancement of the midface with fillers provides the surgeon with a minimal downtime opportunity to treat early aging or reverse nonsurgical volume loss. With new products come advancements in techniques and the understanding of reversal of the effects of aging. While providing minimal downtime and risk, complications can occur and the physician must be able to recognize and treat these issues. It is crucial for the injector to understand and process these factors to ensure patient satisfaction and safety.

The management of dermal filler complications.

Injectable fillers have gained widespread acceptance among the public and provide a nonsurgical means of rejuvenating the face. As the demand for fillers increases, facial plastic surgeons must become not only expert injectors but also experts in managing the complications of fillers. Little scientific data exists regarding the incidence of complications, and more adverse effects may be seen with longer-term follow-up of patients. The purpose of this article is to review the most commonly encountered complications and management thereof.

Total nasal reconstruction: utility of the free radial forearm fascial flap.

BACKGROUND: Total nasal defects present daunting challenges to the reconstructive surgeon. The nasal skeleton can be successfully fabricated with bone and cartilage. Reconstruction of the nasal skin with a forehead flap produces an excellent color match for nasal skin. Resurfacing of the internal lining is the most difficult of the 3 layers. Local tissue is often unsatisfactory in amount and/or vascular supply. METHODS: A patient requiring total nasal reconstruction was prospectively examined. Intraoperative technique was recorded, and postoperative function was determined. RESULTS: A paramedian forehead flap was used to resurface the external defect. Split calvarium and conchal cartilage were used to reconstruct the nasal skeleton. A fascial flap harvested from the forearm was used to replace the intranasal lining. Turbinate grafts were placed to line the flap. Postoperative breathing was excellent. CONCLUSIONS: The intranasal portion of a total nasal defect can be successfully reconstructed with a fascial forearm flap. Placement of a turbinate or mucosal graft allows for a thin mucosalized lining with an excellent functional outcome.

The ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap in head and neck reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The radial forearm fasciocutaneous free flap has become the reconstructive tissue of choice for the majority of soft tissue defects in the head and neck. The forearm skin has many of the ideal soft tissue characteristics that optimize reconstruction and rehabilitation in these patients. The tissue is malleable, supple, and moldable in three dimensions; has a reliable pedicle; and can be harvested with a two-team approach. In some patients, the radial forearm cannot be used. An alternative is to use the adjacent tissue, which shares identical tissue characteristics. This tissue gets its vascular supply from the ulnar artery. The purpose of the report was to describe the authors' experience with the ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap in head and neck reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective consecutive case series. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients undergoing ulnar fasciocutaneous free tissue transfer by a group of microvascular surgeons was performed. Thirty patients underwent free tissue transfer using the ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap. The male-to-female ratio was 3:1. RESULTS: Defects were located in the oral cavity (14), oropharynx (12), neck skin (1), and soft tissue of the lateral skull (3). The average size of the skin paddle that was transferred was 7 x 10 cm (range, 3 x 5 to 9 x 12 cm). The mean area of tissue that was transferred was 70 cm2 (range, 15-108 cm2). Vessel sizes were somewhat smaller than the comparable radial forearm. One patient had complete loss of the skin graft on the donor site. There were no median nerve or other wound-healing problems. Two flaps were lost in the postoperative period. Indications for use of the ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap were failed Allen's test (23), use of a less hairy part of the forearm (3), and surgical preference (4). CONCLUSIONS: The ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap has all of the tissue characteristics of the radial forearm flap. When a radial forearm flap cannot be used and forearm skin is desired, consideration of an ulnar fasciocutaneous free flap should be undertaken.

Use of allogenic dermis for radial forearm free flap donor site coverage.

OBJECTIVE: The radial forearm free flap has become the method of choice for reconstruction of head and neck defects following oncologic ablation. Harvesting of a radial forearm free flap leaves a donor site defect. This is most commonly closed with a split-thickness skin graft. Morbidity, most commonly owing to a lack of graft take over the tendons, can be quite high. Recently, an acellular matrix (Alloderm) has been advocated to decrease complications at the radial forearm donor site, as well as obviate taking a split-thickness skin graft from the thigh. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Tertiary referral academic centre. Retrospective chart review of 15 patients. Five patients received allogenic dermis, 10 patients received split-thickness skin grafting to the radial forearm donor site. RESULTS: Patients with allogenic dermis took between 12 and 16 weeks to heal completely. Patients undergoing split-thickness skin graft were completely healed within 4 to 6 weeks. Cosmesis was judged to be marginally better in the allogenic dermis group. Allogenic dermis placement had a greater impact on hand function owing to prolonged healing, whereas patients with split-thickness skin graft required wound care at the thigh for a 2- to 3-week period owing to the harvesting of the skin graft. CONCLUSIONS: Allogenic dermis may be a viable alternative to split-thickness skin grafting and radial forearm free flap donor sites. Prolonged healing with subsequent increased health care services use needs to be addressed.