Face Lift Practice Patterns: An American Society of Plastic Surgeons Member Survey, 2000 and 2020. How Much Have We Changed?

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Facelift Surgery Following Superficial Parotidectomy: Is it Safe?

INTRODUCTION: Patients who have previously undergone superficial parotidectomy may also seek facelift surgery for facial aging and rejuvenation. These patients present unique challenges compared to a standard facelift patient. Most concerning is the location of facial nerve branches, which may be superficial and displaced. In addition, significant contour deformities and abnormal scar patterns may be present. The purpose of the study is to review our series of patients and assess potential morbidity and safety of facelift surgery in superficial parotidectomy patients. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed reviewing all patients who underwent facelift surgery following superficial parotidectomy from 2000 to 2017. Data were collected for: postoperative facial nerve deficit, soft tissue contour and scar deformities, facelift technique, ancillary soft tissue augmentation procedures and pre- and postoperative photographs. An evidence-based treatment algorithm to address specific problems in this patient population was developed. RESULTS: A total of seven patients were identified who underwent facelift surgery following parotidectomy. Patients underwent one of the standard SMAS procedure on the non-parotidectomy side, and surgical modifications were made to address the parotidectomy side; soft tissue augmentation was performed in two patients. Precautions to identify the facial nerve and prevent injury, including nerve monitoring and stimulation, were utilized in all seven patients. No permanent postoperative facial nerve injury was noted. CONCLUSION: Facelift following superficial parotidectomy was safely performed in all cases. Special consideration should be given to contour deformities, facial nerve location and scar placement. However, if approached properly, these patients can still be considered as suitable candidates for facelift surgery. 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.

Facelift: History and Anatomy.

In this article, we review the history of the facelift operation and how it evolved from skin excision only to the modern superficial musculoaponeurotic system operation. We describe the critical surgical anatomy of the facial layers, retaining ligaments of the face, facial spaces, the 3-dimensional complex course of the facial nerve branches, and the pertinent anatomy of the neck. This article is supplemented by fresh cadaver anatomic dissections.

The Extended Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System.

The extended superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) facelift targets the 2 cardinal signs of facial aging: (1) descent of the malar fat resulting in deepening of the nasolabial folds as well as accentuation of the palpebral malar groove and tear trough deformity; (2) formation of jowls, which also obscure the definition of the lower mandibular border. In this article the authors describe the concepts behind the extended SMAS operation, importantly the extent of skin dissection and SMAS elevation. They present a brief history of the operation and landmark papers and supplement with fresh cadaver dissections.

Facelift in Patients with Massive Weight Loss.

Significant volume deflation and redundant inelastic skin is seen after massive weight loss (MWL). These changes parallel those found with natural aging; thus, patients exhibit accelerated facial aging appearance. A facelift procedure may enhance the cervicofacial contour and reduce the apparent age in MWL patients; nonetheless, fully correcting this facial deformity is challenging. Extensive skin undermining is the most critical aspect of the MWL facelift, as it allows the resection of the excess skin and adequate redraping. This article describes the surgical and medical modifications that need to be considered in the MWL facelift to ensure a successful outcome.

Neck Rejuvenation: Anatomy and Technique.

An aesthetically pleasing neck contour remains the cornerstone for facial rejuvenation. In this article a detailed description of the anatomy pertaining to the necklift surgery is provided, with supplemental cadaver video dissections going over the most common and novel necklift techniques.

Portomesenteric Vein Thrombosis, Bowel Gangrene, and Bilateral Pulmonary Artery Embolism Two Weeks after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass surgery are popular and effective options for weight loss surgery. Portomesenteric vein thrombosis (PMVT) is a documented but rare complication of bariatric surgery. Proper surgical technique, careful postoperative prophylaxis, and early mobilization are essential to prevent this event. The diagnosis of PMVT in the postoperative period requires a high index of suspicion and early directed intervention to prevent a possibly fatal outcome. We present a case of PMVT complicated by small bowel ischemia resulting in gangrene that necessitated resection.

Superficial temporal artery and vein as recipient vessels for scalp and facial reconstruction: radiographic support for underused vessels.

BACKGROUND: The choice of the recipient vessels for microsurgical reconstruction is based on proximity to the defect, vessel caliber, anatomic reliability, and ease of dissection. Traditionally in head and neck reconstruction, the superficial temporal artery and vein (STA/V) have been reserved as secondary recipient vessels. Others, including the facial artery (FA) and vein have been the preferred choice for facial reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all consecutive head and neck reconstructions using the STA/V by the senior author (E.S.G.) over a 5-year period was performed. Perioperative data were reviewed for all the patients. In a subset of patients, radiographic analysis was used to delineate STA and FA anatomy including vessel diameter and distances to standard anatomic landmarks. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients had 32 microsurgical reconstructions using the STA/V as recipient vessels. Radiographic analysis revealed no significant difference between the STA and FA diameters. The distances from the STA to the upper and middle face were significantly shorter relative to the FA, 64 versus 102 mm (p < 0.0001) and 72 versus 80 mm (p < 0.04), respectively. The distances from the lower face to the STA and FA were 56 and 30 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The STA/V can be used as first choice recipient vessels in head and neck reconstruction. Key features of these vessels include proximity to defect, acceptable caliber, predictable anatomic location, and relative ease of dissection. We recommend that the STA/V be considered recipient vessels of choice for reconstruction of defects of the face and scalp.

Alefacept promotes co-stimulation blockade based allograft survival in nonhuman primates.

Memory T cells promote allograft rejection particularly in co-stimulation blockade-based immunosuppressive regimens. Here we show that the CD2-specific fusion protein alefacept (lymphocyte function-associated antigen-3-Ig; LFA -3-Ig) selectively eliminates memory T cells and, when combined with a co-stimulation blockade-based regimen using cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4)-Ig, a CD80- and CD86-specific fusion protein, prevents renal allograft rejection and alloantibody formation in nonhuman primates. These results support the immediate translation of a regimen for the prevention of allograft rejection without the use of calcineurin inhibitors, steroids or pan-T cell depletion.

Costimulation blockade: towards clinical application.

Organ transplantation is an increasingly successful therapy for many forms of organ failure, but its success depends upon drug therapies to prevent immunologic destruction of the transplanted organ also known as rejection. Most therapies designed to prevent rejection alter the immune system in a rather broad, antigen independent way, and thus alter protective immunity as well as immune responses directed against the transplanted organ. Over the past 3 decades, however, it has been realized that a class of surface molecules known as costimulatory receptors are required to generate a fully productive immune response, and that blockade of these receptors during allo-antigen recognition can be used to influence the immune system's future response to that particular allo-antigen. Costimulation blockade has thus been developed as a specific field of interest towards achieving improved antigen specific control over transplant rejection while minimizing broad attenuation of protective immunity seen with conventional immunosuppressives. This field has grown rapidly in the past decade and is now poised to become a valuable therapeutic option for transplant clinicians. This review will outline the basic premise of costimulation biology, review the seminal experimental basis for its use in preventing organ rejection, and discuss the relevant data derived from its initial use in clinical transplant trials. Specific attention will be focused on two major costimulatory pathways, the CD28/CD80-CD86 and the CD40-CD154 pathways, and the clinically applicable data supporting their validity as therapeutic targets. Newly discovered costimulatory pathways will also be discussed as potential therapeutic targets for future clinical drugs.