Fat Grafting to Improve Results of Facelift: Systematic Review of Safety and Effectiveness of Current Treatment Paradigms.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting is a helpful supplement to facelift surgery that helps to combat age-related volume loss of facial structures. Despite the widespread prevalence of combined facelift and fat-grafting, significant procedural variation exists between providers. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this systematic review was to study the efficacy and complication rates of facelift with lipofilling compared with facelift alone. METHODS: A systematic review of the Cochrane Library and MEDLINE databases as completed was undertaken to identify all clinical reports of fat grafting combined with facelift surgery based on the following key terms: ("fat grafting" OR "lipotransfer" OR "lipofilling" OR "fat transfer") AND ("facelift" OR "rhytidectomy" OR "SMASectomy" OR "facial rejuvenation"). Data on techniques, outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction were collected. RESULTS: The systematic review was performed in April 2017. In total, 248 articles were identified for review. After application of exclusion criteria, 15 primary studies were included in this review. Various facelift techniques were reported, including deep-plane or sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) facelift, SMAS facelift, modified minimal access cranial suspension lift, component facelift, midface lift, SMAS plication, SMAS-stacking/SMASectomy, and SMASectomy. The most common locations of fat graft injection included the nasolabial folds, tear troughs, temporal regions, midface/cheek/malar eminence, marionette groove, lips, and ear lobes. The addition of fat grafting to facelift surgery resulted in significant improvements in facial volume and aesthetic assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Combined facelift and fat grafting is a safe and efficacious means to simultaneously address age-related ptosis and volume loss. Further research is required to validate and improve existing treatment modalities.

Solving Congestion in the Plastic Surgery Match: A Game Theory Analysis.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery is among the most competitive specialties in the residency match. Applicants seeking to maximize their chances of a successful match often submit numerous applications to the National Residency Matching Program. It is not uncommon for those applying to plastic and reconstructive surgery to apply to every program. The high application volume imparts significant time and financial burden for applicants and programs alike. Furthermore, it makes distinguishing between applicants with a genuine interest in a specific program and those who are merely hoping to improve their chances vastly more difficult. The authors sought to characterize trends in the match rate, as the number of integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery programs continues to increase. Furthermore, they reviewed the literature on game theory for possible solutions to residency application congestion. The authors propose the use of the game theory model to explain the observed results and show why an application limit is the most reasonable approach to address this issue.

Plastic Surgery Resident-Run Cosmetic Clinics: A Survey of Current Practices.

BACKGROUND: The recently increased minimum aesthetic surgery requirements set by the Plastic Surgery Residency Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education highlight the importance of aesthetic surgery training for plastic surgery residents. Participation in resident aesthetic surgery clinics has become an important tool to achieve this goal. Yet, there is little literature on the current structure of these clinics. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate current practices of aesthetic resident-run clinics in the United States. METHODS: A survey examining specific aspects of chief resident clinics was distributed to 70 plastic surgery resident program directors in the United States. Thirty-five questions sought to delineate clinic structure, procedures and services offered, financial cost to the patient, and satisfaction and educational benefit derived from the experience. RESULTS: Fifty-two questionnaires were returned, representing 74.2% of programs surveyed. Thirty-two (63%) reported having a dedicated resident aesthetic surgery clinic at their institution. The most common procedures performed were abdominoplasty (n = 20), breast augmentation (n = 19), and liposuction (n = 16). Most clinics offered neuromodulators (n = 29) and injectable fillers (n = 29). The most common billing method used was a 50% discount on surgeon fee, with the patient being responsible for the entirety of hospital and anesthesia fees. Twenty-six respondents reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied with their resident aesthetic clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found aesthetic chief resident clinics to differ greatly in their structure. Yet the variety of procedures and services offered makes participation in these clinics an effective training method for the development of both aesthetic surgical technique and resident autonomy.