Aesthetic Rehabilitation Medicine: Enhancing Wellbeing beyond Functional Recovery.

Although rehabilitation medicine emphasizes a holistic health approach, there is still a large gap of knowledge about potential interventions aimed at improving overall wellbeing through cosmetic interventions. Therefore, this narrative review investigates the role of different rehabilitative techniques in enhancing aesthetics, quality of life, and psychosocial wellbeing for patients with disabilities. The study follows the SANRA framework quality criteria for a narrative review. Literature searches across PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus identified articles focusing on rehabilitation strategies within the aesthetic rehabilitation domain. The review identified evidence supporting injection procedures, such as Botulinum Toxin, Platelet-Rich Plasma, Hyaluronic Acid, Ozone, and Carboxytherapy, and assessing their applications in several disabling disorders. Additionally, physical therapies like Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy, Laser Therapy, Microcurrent Therapy, Tecar Therapy, and physical exercises were explored for their impact on cutaneous microcirculation, cellulite treatment, wound healing, and scar appearance improvement. Lastly, the manuscript underlines the role of manual therapy techniques in addressing both physical discomfort and aesthetic concerns, discussing their effectiveness in adipose tissue therapy, scar tissue mobilization, and regional fat thickness reduction. Taken together, this review emphasizes the role of a multidisciplinary approach, aiming to provide valuable insights into potential benefits for both functional and aesthetic outcomes.

Simplifying the injector's armamentarium: An international consensus regarding the use of gel science to differentiate hyaluronic acid fillers and guide treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The Restylane portfolio of soft tissue fillers spans a wide range of indications, due in part to their complementary manufacturing technologies [non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) and Optimal Balance Technology (OBT/XpresHAn)]. Using an array of products, injectors can achieve a holistic, natural looking effect for their patients. However, with a wide range of products it may be difficult to choose an optimal combination. AIM: Simplify and align global use recommendations for NASHA versus OBT products. METHODS: Two pre-meeting surveys were completed by 11 key opinion leaders with international representation, with the goal of collecting information regarding their current injection practices for various anatomical regions of the face (i.e., temporal region, forehead, tear trough, lateral zygoma, anteromedial cheek, nose, pyriform aperture, nasolabial fold, perioral area, lips, labiomental crease, marionette lines, chin, and jawline). The data collected from these surveys was subsequently discussed in a consensus group meeting involving 11 voting members and 3 nonvoting members. RESULTS: Top product recommendations were identified for each anatomical area, along with secondary and tertiary recommendations that can also be used under defined circumstances. Recommendations were provided based on a consideration of elements such as patient features (e.g., skin thickness, bone structure), the desired aesthetic outcome, experience of the injector, and the preferred injection technique. CONCLUSION: A majority consensus regarding the top NASHA versus OBT product choice for each anatomical region of the face was reached. These recommendations represent international agreement regarding the use of Restylane products.

Assessment of Mechanical Stress Induced by Radiofrequency Currents on Skin Interfaces.

The epidermal-dermal (ED) and dermal-subcutaneous (DS) junctions are the most prominent skin interfaces, which are known to be of primary importance in different dermatological and aesthetic conditions. These interfaces are strongly modified in aging skin, and their effective targeting can lead to improvement of skin appearance in aging and by cellulite. Application of radiofrequency (RF) currents to the skin can selectively produce mechanical stress on these interfaces. Here, we assess the stresses induced by RF currents of different frequencies on EDJ and DSJ and discuss possible applications of the interfacial therapy in aesthetic medicine.

Providing Optimal Rejuvenation to the Jawline and Perioral Area Using Neuromodulators and Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers.

Including the jawline in aesthetic assessment has become increasingly popular when using both surgical and nonsurgical techniques. Facial aging processes include bone resorption, fat pad atrophy, and a breakdown of the quality of collagen and elastin in the skin. To provide optimal treatment of the jawline using nonsurgical techniques, it is important to consider all of these aspects before planning treatment. Men and women have different facial aging processes and ideal facial ratios that must be respected. The objective of this article is to discuss the use of botulinum toxin A and hyaluronic acid filler injectable treatments, deoxycholic acid injectable treatments, and cryolipolysis treatments and explain how these treatments can be utilized for optimal rejuvenation of the jawline and perioral area.

Cosmetic outcomes after transoral robotic thyroidectomy: Comparison with transaxillary, postauricular, and conventional approaches.

OBJECTIVES: Transoral thyroidectomy does not involve neck incision, and its postoperative cosmetic outcome is thought to be superior to that of conventional thyroidectomy and other remote-access procedures. This study aimed to compare the cosmetic outcomes between transoral robotic thyroidectomy (TORT) and conventional transcervical thyroidectomy and two common remote-access robotic thyroidectomies via the transaxillary and postauricular approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 160 patients who underwent TORT, robotic thyroidectomies via the transaxillary or postauricular approach, or conventional transcervical thyroidectomy (40 patients in each group). The postoperative cosmetic outcomes, including cosmetic satisfaction and scar consciousness scores, were evaluated using self-assessment cosmesis questionnaires at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. The cosmesis index was defined as the sum of the percentage scores for cosmetic satisfaction and scar consciousness. RESULTS: Cosmetic satisfaction scores, scar consciousness scores, and cosmesis indexes were significantly higher for the transoral, transaxillary, and postauricular approaches than the conventional approach at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. There was a trend of better cosmetic outcomes, especially regarding scar consciousness, for the transoral and transaxillary approaches than for the postauricular approach, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Postoperative cosmesis of TORT, as well as the transaxillary and postauricular approaches, is superior to that of conventional thyroidectomy. The cosmetic outcomes of the transoral and transaxillary approaches seem to be better than those of the postauricular approach.

Natural History of the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey After Rhinoplasty.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To explore the natural history of nasal obstruction and cosmesis following rhinoplasty by utilizing the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart study. METHODS: This study was carried out at a tertiary referral center, preoperative and postoperative Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE), SCHNOS-Obstruction (SCHNOS-O), and SCHNOS-Cosmesis (SCHNOS-C) scores in patients who underwent rhinoplasty for functional, cosmetic, or both reasons from June 2017 to May 2019 were reviewed and analyzed. Postoperative intervals were defined as <2 months, 2 to 5 months, 5 to 8 months, 8 to 12 months, and >12 months. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients (67% women), with a mean age (standard deviation [SD]) of 35 (13) years, who underwent rhinoplasty for functional (90, 30%), cosmetic (124, 41%), and combined functional and cosmetic (88, 29%) reasons, met inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up period (SD, range) was 5 months (4.2 months, 13 days-1.8 years). Compared to the preoperative mean NOSE score, SCHNOS- O, and SCHNOS-C scores, postoperative mean scores for the functional and combined subgroup were significantly lower (P < .05) across all five postoperative intervals. In the cosmetic subgroup, postoperative mean SCHNOS-C scores were significantly lower (P < .05) across all postoperative intervals compared to the mean preoperative scores. CONCLUSIONS: The natural history of the SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C score in patients who underwent rhinoplasty demonstrates 1) after functional rhinoplasty, an improvement in nasal breathing symptoms is attained as early as <2 months postoperatively; and 2) after cosmetic rhinoplasty, an improvement in nasal cosmesis is seen as early as <2 months postoperatively. These improvements in nasal breathing and cosmesis are sustained through a follow-up interval >12 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E116-E123, 2021.

Re Facial aesthetic injections in clinical practice: Pretreatment and post-treatment consensus recommendations to minimise adverse outcome Region-specific changes in line with the Covid-19 pandemic.

Despite the recent publication in March 2020 of guidelines for facial injectable treatments, the speed of the COVID-19 pandemic and its safety implications necessitate changes to these guidelines The authors described what would constitute safest practice in the provision of facial injectable treatments and summarised these in table form. Adherence to a high standard of asepsis and infectious disease precautions remain a key patient safety requirement when performing facial aesthetic injections. A revision and update of these guideline summary tables follows. Changes made should enhance both patient and staff safety regarding COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2, a highly infective respiratory pathogen transmitted by respiratory droplets, respiratory/mucosal secretions and contaminated fomites. Some of the additions are COVID-19 specific and are likely to evolve and change, particularly should serological tests determining acquired immunity become available. Other additions represent further tightening of our infection control precautions.

Safety guidelines for nonsurgical facial procedures during COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is expected to last for an extended time, making strict safety precautions for office procedures unavoidable. The lockdown is going to be lifted in many areas, and strict guidelines detailing the infection control measures for aesthetic clinics are going to be of particular importance. METHODS: A virtual meeting was conducted with the members (n = 12) of the European Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery Focus Group to outline the safety protocol for the nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures for aesthetic practices in order to protect the clinic staff and the patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The data analysis was undertaken by thematic and iterative approach. RESULTS: Consensus guidelines for nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures based on current knowledge are provided for three levels: precautions before visiting the clinic, precautions during the clinic visit, and precautions after the clinic visit. CONCLUSIONS: Sound infection control measures are mandatory for nonsurgical aesthetic practices all around the world. These may vary from country to country, but this logical approach can be customized according to the respective country laws and guidelines.

The aftermath of COVID-19 in dermatology practice: What's next?

The rapidly increasing number of COVID-19-infected patients and evidence of human-to-human transmission even within the asymptomatic incubation period prompted the attention of the entire world. The field of dermatology and procedural dermatology is not exempt from this global issue. We cannot deny the fact that this situation will have a lasting impact on the health-seeking behaviors of our patients. It is necessary for dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons to be aware of the potential risks and precautions when re-emerging their practices after COVID-19.

Cosmetic treatment in patients with autoimmune connective tissue diseases: Best practices for patients with lupus erythematosus.

The cutaneous manifestations of lupus, especially chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus, are a source of significant morbidity and can negatively impact patient quality of life. While the active inflammatory component of the disease may be adequately treated, patients are frequently left with residual skin damage and disfiguring aesthetic deficits. Dermatologists lack guidelines regarding the use and safety of various reconstructive and cosmetic interventions in this patient population. Laser treatments are largely avoided in the lupus population because of the possible photodamaging effects of ultraviolet and visible light. Similarly, given the autoimmune nature of this disease, some physicians avoid injectable treatment and grafts because of the concern for disease reactivation via antigenic stimulation. In the second article in this continuing medical education series we compile available data on this topic with the goal of providing evidence-based guidance on the cosmetic treatment of patients with lupus erythematosus with a focus on chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus.

Cosmetic treatment in patients with autoimmune connective tissue diseases: Best practices for patients with morphea/systemic sclerosis.

Morphea and systemic sclerosis are inflammatory, sclerosing disorders. Morphea primarily affects the dermis and subcutaneous fat, while systemic sclerosis typically involves the skin and internal organs. Functional impairment and cosmetic disfigurement are common in both diseases. Treatment options to mitigate disease progression remain limited. Both functional impairment and cosmetic deficits negatively impact quality of life and psychological well-being in this patient population. While the number of cosmetic procedures performed in the United States continues to rise each year, limited data exist regarding best practices for correcting aesthetic deficits caused by autoimmune conditions. There is scarce information to guide safety decisions regarding laser parameters, soft tissue augmentation, treatment intervals, and the concurrent use of immune-modifying or immune-suppressing medications. Given the fears of disease reactivation and exacerbation from postprocedural inflammation along with limited data, it is difficult for clinicians to provide evidence-based cosmetic treatment with realistic expectations with regard to short- and long-term outcomes. In the first article in this continuing medical education series, we attempt to address this practice gap.