Complications and Risks Associated With the Different Types of Abdominoplasties: An Analysis of 55,956 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Different types of abdominoplasties have been developed to address individual patient characteristics. However, an analysis of complication rates and risk factors for different types of abdominoplasties has yet to be reported. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the complication rates and risks associated with each type of abdominoplasty. METHODS: Utilizing the CosmetAssure database, patients undergoing an abdominoplasty from 2015 to 2022 were identified. Demographic factors and major complications were recorded and analyzed with a chi-square test or analysis of variance. A logistic regression was performed to identify the risk for developing complications associated with each type of abdominoplasty. RESULTS: A total of 55,596 patients underwent an abdominoplasty procedure by any method. The overall complication rate was 2.1%. There was a significant difference in the overall complication rates of all 7 types of abdominoplasties (P < .05), with fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty having the highest complication rate. The year of surgery, being underweight or morbidly obese, having diabetes, and being male placed patients at a significantly higher risk for developing a postoperative complication. Over 15,000 patients (27.2%) had concurrent procedures related to breast surgery, other body contouring, liposuction, or facial surgery. When accounting for various risk factors in a regression model, there was no significant added risk for major complications after a combination procedure with an abdominoplasty compared to abdominoplasty alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among the different types of abdominoplasties, a fleur-de-lis abdominoplasty has the highest complication rate. Concurrent cosmetic procedures with an abdominoplasty showed no added risk for major complications when compared to abdominoplasty alone.

Superior Vector Plication of the Mobile Anterior Midface: The Delta Facelift.

BACKGROUND: Traditional plication techniques have been ineffective in addressing the anterior midface when compared to the sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) "deep plane" approaches. However, by moving the plication much closer to the mobile medial fat tissues, a more effective and long-lasting plication can be accomplished without releasing the SMAS layer. OBJECTIVES: The authors' "Delta facelift" approach combines a rotation vertical advancement of the midface fat with a dual-vector platysmaplasty and deep cervicoplasty as indicated for a harmoniously youthful neck. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent facial rejuvenation with the Delta facelift technique between January 1, 2012, and May 30, 2021, for patient demographics, procedure details, outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients underwent Delta facelift (273 females, 10 males). The average age was 60.8 years old. Primary facelift was performed in 229 patients, whereas 54 facelifts were secondary or further procedures. Adjunctive procedures included autologous fat grafting (93%), blepharoplasty (52%), and skin rejuvenating procedures (35%). There were 11 self-resolving neuropraxias, 6 minor hematomas, and 6 infections. Nine patients underwent repeat Delta facelift at an average of 9.3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The Delta rotation vertical advancement of the anterior facial fat counters the descent and deflation associated with facial aging. Dual-vector platysmaplasty, with or without myotomy, effectively manages the jowl and delineates the jawline. Addition of deep cervicoplasty is recommended for patients with oblique necks or those with subplatysmal volume excess.

Complete Hemifacial Paralysis Post-facelift: Making Sense of a Plastic Surgeon's Worst Nightmare.

BACKGROUND: Postrhytidectomy hemifacial paralysis is a frightening clinical condition affecting the proximal facial nerve and most often associated with Bell's palsy. Associated symptoms are common and include auditory, salivary, vestibular, and gustatory complaints. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to provide increased awareness of postrhytidectomy hemifacial paralysis secondary to Bell's palsy in the plastic surgery community. METHODS: Following a roundtable discussion with the senior author's (J.C.G.) plastic surgery colleagues located all over the world, 8 surgeons reported having had firsthand experience with hemifacial paralysis in patients following facelift. Descriptions of their cases, including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative courses were collected and reported. RESULTS: A total of 10 cases of postrhytidectomy hemifacial paralysis were analyzed based on results of a clinical questionnaire. Eight of the 10 cases involved all facial nerve branches, with 2 cases sparing the marginal mandibular branch. The vast majority of cases were referred to a neurologist and steroids initiated. Two patients were returned to the operating room for exploration. Associated symptoms reported included pain in the ear, hearing loss, ocular symptoms such as tearing or dryness, vestibular symptoms such as vertigo, changes in taste, and in 1 patient an electric-shock type sensation to the face. CONCLUSIONS: Hemifacial paralysis associated with Bell's palsy following rhytidectomy is a rare but known clinical entity that should be included in the preoperative informed consent process before facelift. Current management trends are neurology referral and steroid initiation.

Facial Hypertrophy as a Complication of Weight Gain in Autologous Fat Graft Patients: Considerations and Recommendations.

Fat grafting can restore facial volume for reconstructive and cosmetic indications. Common practice often involves extracting lipoaspirate from the most abundant anatomic location. However, grafted fat retains the phenotypic characteristics of its original location and can undergo exaggerated hypertrophy with patient weight fluctuations. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the literature to summarize the reported effects of postoperative weight gain on facial hypertrophy in patients after facial fat grafting and to determine potentially avoidable factors. A search through PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted on October 4, 2022, to identify relevant articles with appropriate search terms. No lower date limit was applied and all eligible nonanimal clinical articles in English were included for review. Reports were summarized and presented as descriptive statistics. The search generated 714 articles. After abstract and full-text review of the initial set of articles, 6 were included in our analysis. All articles described poor cosmetic outcomes resulting from nonanatomic hypertrophy of the grafted fat. None of the articles reported a thorough methodology for selecting the donor site to minimize fat hypertrophy with potential future weight fluctuations. Grafted facial fat is susceptible to exaggerated hypertrophy as a result of changes in patient weight. Specifically, harvesting lipoaspirate from maximally abundant areas of the body may increase this risk. Individualizing the area of fat donation may attenuate unwanted fat growth and further contribute to increased patient quality of life.

Does Brow Lift Add Risk to Blepharoplasty? Answers From a Multicenter Analysis of 6126 Patients Undergoing Aesthetic Eye Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Browlift is frequently combinedwith blepharoplasty; however, the literature is lacking on their combined effect on complication rates. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate major complication rates after blepharoplasty and brow lift and to determine if complication rates increase when blepharoplasty and brow lift were performed simultaneously. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients who underwent cosmetic blepharoplasty, brow lift, or a combination of the 2 procedures between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure Insurance database. The primary outcome was a postoperative major complication requiring emergency room evaluation, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days. Groups were compared with univariate analysis (significance, P < 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 6126 patients underwent aesthetic eye surgery, of which, 4879 (79.6%) underwent blepharoplasty, 441 (7.2%) brow lift, and 806 (13.2%) a combination the 2 procedures. Patients who underwent a combined procedure were older than patients who underwent isolated blepharoplasty or brow lift (55.5 ± 9.4 vs 54.6 ± 11.1 vs 53.3 ± 12.0 years; P < 0.01). In males, blepharoplasty was the most commonly performed procedure, followed by a combined procedure and brow lift (17.6% vs 12.9% vs 10.7%; P < 0.01). There were similar rates of smokers between the 3 groups (5.7% vs 8.0% vs 6.6%; P = 0.06). Between combined procedures, blepharoplasty, and brow lift there, were similar rates of major complications (0.4% vs 0.4% vs 0.7%; P = 0.65) and hematoma (0.2% vs 0.2% vs 0.5%; P = 0.49), which was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic eye surgery has a very low overall major complication rate (0.4%). When brow lift is combined with blepharoplasty, it poses no additional risk of major complications compared with either procedure alone.

The Gliding Brow Lift.

Subcutaneous undermining for brow lifting is not a new technique, but the gliding brow lift is evolutionary in the sense that it can be done through 1 or 2 tiny incisions and the brow shape maintained with transcutaneous running sutures (the hemostatic net). Undermining over the frontalis muscle and galea is performed using blunt dissectors and the lifting is done with superior traction, holding the brow in the desired shape with the hemostatic net.

Preoperative Risk Factors and Complication Rates of Breast Augmentation With Fat Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The current literature on the complications and risk factors of autologous fat grafting (AFG) for breast augmentation is scant and inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to use a large, multicenter database to determine the major complications and risk factors of patients undergoing breast augmentation with AFG in comparison to breast augmentation with implants. METHODS: Patients undergoing breast augmentation with AFG as well as with implants between January 2, 2017 and July 31, 2019 were identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). The primary outcome was the occurrence of major complication(s) requiring emergency department visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 45 days postoperatively. Age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, facility, ASA class, and anesthetic type were evaluated as risk factors. RESULTS: Among the 76,128 patients enrolled in CosmetAssure, 789 (1.0%) underwent breast augmentation with AFG, in comparison to 18,544 (24.3%) patients with implants. The incidence of any major complication in the AFG cohort and implant cohort was 3.2% and 2.3%, respectively. Infection was significantly higher in the AFG cohort (1.1% vs 0.5%). Tobacco users were more likely to have any complication, infection, and pulmonary dysfunction/hypoxia on univariate analysis. ASA Class III/IV was more likely to have any complication and infection. On multivariate analysis, smoking was an independent risk factor for any complication (relative risk = 17.1) and infection (relative risk = 20.2). CONCLUSIONS: Infection and hematoma are the most common major complications in breast augmentation with AFG. Tobacco use is the only independent risk factor for overall complications and infection. Breast augmentation with AFG has a higher infection rate than augmentation with implants.

Incidence and Preoperative Risk Factors for Major Complications After Capsulectomy: Analysis of 3048 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although there are many indications for periprosthetic breast capsulectomy, heightened public attention surrounding breast implant illness has resulted in increased rates of capsulectomy. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the incidence of major complications and risk factors associated with capsulectomy. METHODS: From an examination of a prospectively enrolled cosmetic surgery insurance database, CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL), patients undergoing capsulectomy between January 2, 2017 and July 31, 2019 were identified. Outcomes measured included the occurrence of and risk factors for major complication(s) necessitating an emergency department visit, hospitalization, or reoperation within 45 postoperative days. RESULTS: Among 76,128 patients evaluated, 3048 (4.0%) underwent capsulectomy. There was a significant increase in number of capsulectomies following January 6, 2019 (2.7/day vs 5.2/day, P < 0.05). Capsulectomy patients were more likely to have any complication and specifically hematoma than those undergoing breast implant removal or replacement without capsulectomy (2.8% vs 1.9% and 1.6% vs 0.9%, respectively, P < 0.05). Eighty-four (2.8%) developed at least 1 complication. The most common complications included hematoma (1.6%) followed by infection (0.5%). American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III/IV was an independent risk factor for any complication and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 and office-based surgical suites were risk factors for infection. CONCLUSIONS: A growing number of capsulectomies are being performed. The most common major complication is hematoma. Patients undergoing capsulectomy experience a higher complication rate than those undergoing breast implant removal or replacement without capsulectomy. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential for major complications.

International Expert Panel Consensus on Fat Grafting of the Breast.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting has broad applications in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery as a natural filler and for its regenerative purposes. Despite the widespread use of fat grafting, there remains no shared consensus on what constitutes the optimal fat grafting technique and its oncological safety. For this reason, the authors of this study have organized a Survey and an International Consensus Conference that was held at the Aesthetic Breast Meeting in Milan (December 15, 2018). METHODS: All studies on fat grafting, both for breast aesthetic and reconstructive purposes, were electronically screened. The literature review led to 17 "key questions" that were used for the Survey. The authors prepared a set of 10 "key statements" that have been discussed in a dedicated face-to-face session during the meeting. RESULTS: The 10 key statements addressed all the most debated topics on fat grafting of the breast. Levels of evidence for the key statements ranged from III to IV with 2 statements (20%) supported by a level of evidence III and 6 statements (60%) by level of evidence IV. Overall consensus was reached for 2 statements (20%) with >75% agreement reached for 7 statements. CONCLUSIONS: The survey demonstrated a diversity of opinion and attitude among the panelists with regard to technique. Clear recommendations for evidence-based clinical practice for fat grafting use both in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery could not be defined due to the scarcity of level 1 or 2 studies.

The Effect of Smoking in the Cosmetic Surgery Population: Analysis of 129,007 Patients.

Background: Smoking has been associated with several postoperative adverse outcomes across multiple surgical disciplines, but the literature is limited for aesthetic surgical procedures. Objectives: To compare complication rates between smokers and nonsmokers undergoing common cosmetic procedures, identify specific cosmetic procedures where smoking increases the risk of complications, and evaluate smoking as an independent risk factor for major complications following aesthetic surgery. Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Smoking was evaluated as a risk factor for major complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days after surgery. Multivariate regression analysis was performed controlling for the effects of age, gender, body mass index, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures. Results: Of the 129,007 patients, 10,621 (8.2%) were smokers. All procedures examined, except breast augmentation, were more frequently performed in the nonsmoker cohort. Overall major complications were similar between smokers and nonsmokers (2.0% vs 1.9%, P = 0.57). In univariate analysis, surgical site infections (0.6% vs 0.5%, P = 0.04) were significantly higher among smokers, but suspected venous thromboembolism (0.2% vs 0.1%, P = 0.01) was significantly higher among nonsmokers. Notably, smokers had a higher risk of major complications after body procedures (2.9% vs 1.0%, P = 0.01), as well as thigh lifts (23.8% vs 3.6%, P < 0.01) and male breast surgery (3.7% vs 1.4%, P = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, smoking was found to be an independent predictor of surgical site infections (relative risk 1.61, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Smoking is an independent risk factor of major surgical site infections following aesthetic surgery. Body procedures, as well as thigh lifts and male breast surgery, have higher complication rates in smokers.

Aesthetic Surgical Procedures in Men: Major Complications and Associated Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: The number of men undergoing cosmetic surgery is increasing in North America. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications in males undergoing cosmetic surgery, compare the complication profiles between men and women, and identify specific procedures that are associated with higher risk of complications in males. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Gender specific procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major complication in males requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures. RESULTS: Of the 129,007 patients, 54,927 underwent gender nonspecific procedures, of which 5801 (10.6%) were males. Women showed a higher mean age (46.4 ± 14.1 vs 45.2 ± 16.7 years, P < 0.01). Men had a higher BMI (27.2 ± 4.7 vs 25.7 ± 4.9 kg/m2, P < 0.01), and were more likely to be smokers (7.1% vs 5.7%, P < 0.01) when compared to women. Men demonstrated similar overall major complication rates compared to women (2.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.97). When specific complications were analyzed further, men had higher hematoma rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection. Additionally, major complications after abdominoplasty, facelift surgery, and buttock augmentation were noted to preferentially affect males. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of major complications in males included BMI (RR 1.05), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 3.47), and combined procedures (RR 2.56). CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic surgery in men is safe with low major complication rates. Modifiable predictors of complications included BMI and combined procedures.

Incidence and Preoperative Risk Factors for Major Complications in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty: Analysis of 4978 Patients.

Background: Rhinoplasty remains one of the most common aesthetic procedures performed in the United States. Current literature on rhinoplasty complications is inconclusive and is based on retrospective reviews and small cohorts. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence and identify predictive risk factors for major complications following rhinoplasty alone or in combination with other aesthetic operations in a large, prospective, multicenter database study. Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing rhinoplasty between May 2008 and May 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications, defined as complications requiring an emergency room visit, hospital admission, or a reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures. Results: A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 4978 (3.9%) underwent a rhinoplasty. The overall complication rate was 0.7% (n = 37). Hematoma was the most common complication (0.2%), followed by infection (0.2%), and pulmonary complications (0.1%). Age ≥40 years was found to be an independent risk factor for developing complications. Age ≥40 years was found to have a relative risk of 2.05 (P = 0.04) for any major complication. Complications increased from 0.58% in rhinoplasty alone cases to 1.02% (P < 0.05) with the addition of 1 other body region to 2.09% with the addition of 2 other body regions (P < 0.05). The risk of pulmonary complications increased from 0.1% to 1% (P < 0.05) with the addition of rhinoplasty with 2 other body regions. Gender, type of facility, smoking status, and BMI ≥25 did not appear to significantly impact the risk for major complications. Conclusions: The major complication rate following rhinoplasty remains low. The risk is increased with age ≥40 years and with the addition of other cosmetic procedures. Pulmonary complications, although rare, do occur, and also increase when combining rhinoplasty with other aesthetic surgery. These findings are important to consider when planning rhinoplasty and educating patients on the safety of combined aesthetic surgeries. Level of Evidence: 2.

Cosmetic Liposuction: Preoperative Risk Factors, Major Complication Rates, and Safety of Combined Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Liposuction is among the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures, and is being performed increasingly as an adjunct to other procedures. OBJECTIVES: To report the incidence and risk factors of significant complications after liposuction, and to determine whether adding liposuction to other cosmetic surgical procedures impacts the complication risk. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients who underwent liposuction between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major complications requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures. RESULTS: Of the 31,010 liposuction procedures, only 11,490 (37.1%) were performed as a solitary procedure. Liposuction alone had a major complication rate of 0.7% with hematoma (0.15%), pulmonary complications (0.1%), infection (0.1%), and confirmed venous thromboembolism (VTE) (0.06%) being the most common. Independent predictors of major complications included combined procedures (Relative Risk (RR) 4.81), age (RR 1.01), BMI (RR 1.05), and procedures performed in hospitals (RR 1.36). When examining specifically other aesthetic procedures performed alone or with liposuction, combined procedures had a higher risk of confirmed VTE (RR 5.65), pulmonary complications (RR 2.72), and infection (RR 2.41), but paradoxically lower hematoma risk (RR 0.77) than solitary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Liposuction performed alone is a safe procedure with a low risk of major complications. Combined procedures, especially on obese or older individuals, can significantly increase complication rates. The impact of liposuction on the risk of hematoma in combined procedures needs further investigation.