Endoscopic-Assisted Forehead Augmentation with Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Patient-Specific Implant (PSI) for Aesthetic Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Forehead augmentation have become popular aesthetic procedures among Asians in recent years. However, the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) patient-specific implant (PSI) in the facial contouring surgery for aesthetic considerations is not well documented in the existing studies. The purpose of this study was to develop a novel method for forehead augmentation and assess the clinical outcomes and complications in patients who underwent forehead augmentation with PEEK PSI assisted by endoscopy. METHODS: The PEEK PSIs were fabricated using the virtual surgical planning (VSP) and the computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) for each patient, preoperatively. The implant pockets were dissected in the subperiosteal plane, and PEEK PSIs were placed in their designed position and fixed assisting by endoscopy via small incision within the hairline. All patients were asked to complete the FACE-Q questionnaire before and 6 months after the operation. Pre- and postoperative demographics, photographs, and other clinical data of patients were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: 11 patients underwent forehead augmentation were enrolled in this study. All procedures were completed successfully with the help of endoscope. The average patient age was 30.63 ± 2.54 years. The mean thickness and size of PEEK PSI were 4.44 ± 1.77 mm and 38.43 ± 22.66 cm2, respectively. The mean operative time was 83.00 ± 29.44 min, and the mean postoperative follow-up period was 11.00 ± 6.50 months. No implant exposure, extrusion or removal were reported. The FACE-Q scores of patients in satisfaction with the forehead increased from 47.64 ± 7.15 to 78.81 ± 6.35. CONCLUSIONS: PEEK PSIs can be prefabricated to achieve accurate remodeling of the frontal contour with good esthetic outcomes. The endoscope provides direct and magnified vision, which allow easy access to the supraorbital rim and lateral edge of the eyebrow arch and confirming the position of the implants without damaging nerves and vessels. Endoscopic-assisted forehead augmentation with PEEK PSI is safe and effective. 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 .

Evaluating Surgical Accuracy in Bimaxillary Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mandible-First versus Maxilla-First Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Mandible-first surgery (MdFS) has gained attention as an alternative to the traditional maxilla-first surgery (MxFS) in bimaxillary procedures. Given the distinct sequence of operations between these approaches, evaluating the clinical advantages of MdFS compared to MxFS is crucial for optimizing surgical decision-making. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine intraoperative achievability and postoperative stability between these two surgical approaches. METHODS: A thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MEDLINE, covering articles published from 2013 to 2023. Studies included were retrospective, prospective, and randomized trials that compared the accuracy and/or stability of MdFS with MxFS. The primary endpoint for the meta-analysis was the standardized mean difference in surgical accuracy for translational movements, with a secondary focus on rotational accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies encompassing 712 patients met the inclusion criteria. The analysis suggested that MdFS might reduce accuracy in the sagittal dimension (CI, 0.05 to 0.74) but offered greater achievability in the vertical direction (CI, - 0.47 to - 0.07). Additionally, MdFS was associated with a relatively posterior (CI, - 1.18 to - 0.60) and inferior (CI, - 0.64 to - 0.07) positioning of the maxillomandibular complex. CONCLUSION: Despite certain limitations, our findings indicate that MdFS can achieve clinical outcomes similar to MxFS in terms of both accuracy and stability. However, further researches with larger sample sizes and more rigorous study designs are necessary to validate these conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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 .

A Retrospective Study of Transaxillary Endoscopic Breast Augmentation Using Ultrasonic Scalpel or Conventional Electrocautery for Implant Pocket Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonic scalpel has been reported to be superior to conventional electrocautery in many studies. However, with respect to transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation, few studies on the effect of ultrasonic scalpel are available in the literature. METHODS: The medical records of 173 female patients who underwent breast augmentation via endoscopic transaxillary approach from January 2018 to December 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the implant pocket dissection instruments. In group A, the implant pockets were dissected with conventional electrocautery (EC group) on 81 patients, and in group B, ultrasonic scalpel (US group) was used for implant pockets on 92 patients. All operations were performed by the same senior plastic surgeon and the same surgical team. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative total drainage volume, days of drainage, postoperative surgical site pain and hospital stay time of the two groups were compared and analyzed statistically. RESULTS: The average operation time of the US group (83.82 ± 11.57 min) was significantly shorter than that of the EC group (101.40 ± 14.36 min), intraoperative blood loss in the US group was significantly less than that of the EC group (18.67 ± 6.20 ml vs. 21.59 ± 6.44 ml), the mean hospital stay days (2.96 ± 0.69 vs. 4.30 ± 1.11), total drainage volume (122.24 ± 43.81 vs. 232.37 ± 99.15), and duration of drain (2.52 ± 0.54 vs. 3.77 ± 1.10), mean VAS score for surgical site pain on 3 postoperative days (5.08 ± 1.35 vs. 6.51 ± 1.36, 4.08 ± 1.16 vs. 5.40 ± 1.32, 3.04 ± 0.91 vs. 4.06 ± 1.11) were significantly lower in the US group compared to the EC group. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasonic scalpel reduces operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative pain, hospital stay time, and incidence of complications. The ultrasonic scalpel is safe and reliable for transaxillary endoscopic breast augmentation. 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 .