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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Risk Factors for Major Surgical Site Infections in Aesthetic Surgery: Analysis of 129,007 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. OBJECTIVES: This study reports the incidence and risk factors of major SSIs following aesthetic surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major SSI requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for SSIs including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures. RESULTS: A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 599 (0.46%) had a major SSI. Mean age (43.8 ± 12.4 years vs 40.9 ± 13.9 years, P < .01) and BMI (27.3 ± 5.5 kg/m2 vs 24.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2, P < .01) were higher in patients with SSIs. Patients with a SSI were more likely to be smokers (10.5% vs 8.2%, P = .04) and diabetic (4.5% vs 1.8%, P < .01). Females suffered more SSI than males (0.5% vs 0.3%, P = .02). Trunk/extremity procedures had a higher incidence of SSI compared to breast or face procedures (0.9% vs 0.2%, P < .01). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of SSI included age (Relative Risk [RR] 1.01), female gender (RR 1.86), BMI (RR 1.07), smoking (RR 1.61), diabetes (RR 1.58), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 1.39), trunk/extremity procedures (RR 2.42), and combined procedures (RR 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: SSIs following cosmetic surgical procedures are associated with numerous independent predictors, which should be taken into consideration when counseling patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Risk.

Venous Thromboembolism in the Cosmetic Patient: Analysis of 129,007 Patients.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the most feared postoperative complications in cosmetic surgery. The true rate of VTE in this patient population remains largely unknown with current American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) prophylaxis recommendations partially extrapolated from other surgical specialties. Objectives: This study analyzed the risk factors for VTE in cosmetic surgical procedures. Methods: A prospective cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of a clinically significant VTE within 30 days of surgery. Risk factors analyzed included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures. Results: A total of 129,007 patients were identified, of which 116 (0.09%) had a confirmed VTE. Combined procedures had a significantly higher overall rate of VTE compared to solitary procedures (0.20% vs 0.04%, P < .01). On multivariate logistic regression, significant risk factors for VTE (P < .05) included body procedures (RR 13.47), combined procedures (RR 2.4), increasing BMI (RR 1.06), and age (RR 1.02). Gender, smoking, diabetes, and type of surgical facility were not found to be significant risk factors. Face procedures (0.01%) and breast procedures (0.01%) had the lowest VTE rates, followed by combined face/body (0.16%), body procedures (0.21%), and combined body/breast procedures (0.28%). Conclusions: The incidence of VTE after cosmetic procedures is relatively low. However, the risk increases with combined procedures as well as with particular body areas, most notably trunk and extremities. Equally, significant patient risk factors exist, including BMI and age.

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.

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.

Safety of Cosmetic Surgery in Adolescent Patients.

Background: Limited surgical literature currently exists that evaluates postoperative complications after cosmetic surgery in adolescents. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of major postoperative complications in adolescent patients undergoing cosmetic surgery and compare their complication rates to older patients. Methods: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgical procedures between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Demographics, clinical characteristics, surgical procedures, and major complications in adolescent patients (age 10-19 years) and older patients (≥20 years old) were compared. Risk factors analyzed included age, gender, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures. Results: Overall, 3519 adolescents and 124,409 older patients underwent cosmetic surgical procedures. The adolescent cohort contained more men (20.0% vs 6.0%, P < 0.01), lower mean body mass index (22.6 ± 4.1 vs 24.4 ± 4.6, P < 0.01), lower prevalence of diabetes (0.8% vs 1.9%, P <0.01), and fewer smokers (5.9% vs 8.3%, P < 0.01) compared to the older patient cohort. Most commonly adolescent patients underwent breast followed by face and body procedures. Overall adolescent patients demonstrated a lower incidence of major postoperative complications compared to older patients after single (0.6% vs 1.5%, P < 0.01) and combined (1.2% vs 3%, P = 0.03) cosmetic procedures. Adolescent patients had lower complications rates after face, breast, and body procedures compared to the older cohort. The most common postoperative complications in adolescent patients were hematoma (0.34%) and infection (0.28%). Conclusions: Cosmetic surgical procedures in adolescent patients are safe with a lower rate of major postoperative complications compared to older patients. Level of Evidence: 2.

Is Office-Based Surgery Safe? Comparing Outcomes of 183,914 Aesthetic Surgical Procedures Across Different Types of Accredited Facilities.

BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic rise in office-based surgery. However, due to wide variations in regulatory standards, the safety of office-based aesthetic surgery has been questioned. OBJECTIVES: This study compares complication rates of cosmetic surgery performed at office-based surgical suites (OBSS) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and hospitals. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 were identified from the CosmetAssure database (Birmingham, AL). Patients were grouped by type of accredited facility where the surgery was performed: OBSS, ASC, or hospital. The primary outcome was the incidence of major complication(s) requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days postoperatively. Potential risk factors including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of procedure, and combined procedures were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 129,007 patients (183,914 procedures) in the dataset, the majority underwent the procedure at ASCs (57.4%), followed by hospitals (26.7%) and OBSS (15.9%). Patients operated in OBSS were less likely to undergo combined procedures (30.3%) compared to ASCs (31.8%) and hospitals (35.3%, P < .01). Complication rates in OBSS, ASCs, and hospitals were 1.3%, 1.9%, and 2.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, there was a lower risk of developing a complication in an OBSS compared to an ASC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.77, P < .01) or a hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.68, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Accredited OBSS appear to be a safe alternative to ASCs and hospitals for cosmetic procedures. Plastic surgeons should continue to triage their patients carefully based on other significant comorbidities that were not measured in this present study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3.

Aesthetic Breast Surgery and Concomitant Procedures: Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Complications in 73,608 Cases.

Background: Major complications following aesthetic breast surgery are uncommon and thus assessment of risk factors is challenging. Objectives: To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications following aesthetic breast surgery and concomitant procedures. Methods: A prospective cohort of patients who enrolled into the CosmetAssure (Birmingham, AL) insurance program and underwent aesthetic breast surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified. Major complications (requiring reoperation, readmission, or emergency room visit) within 30 days of surgery were recorded. Risk factors including age, smoking, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, type of surgical facility, and combined procedures were evaluated. Results: Among women, augmentation was the most common breast procedure (n = 41,651, 58.6%) followed by augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. Overall, major complications occurred in 1.46% with hematoma (0.99%) and infection (0.25%) being most common. Augmentation-mastopexy had a higher risk of complications, particularly infection (relative risk [RR] 1.74, P < 0.01), than single breast procedures. Age was the only significant predictor for hematomas (RR 1.01, P < 0.01). Increasing age (RR 1.02, P = 0.03) and BMI (RR 1.09, P < 0.01) were risk factors for infection. Concomitant abdominoplasty was performed in 4162 (5.8%) female patients and was associated with increased risk of complications compared to breast procedures or abdominoplasty performed alone. Among men, correction of gynecomastia was the most common breast procedure (n = 1613, 64.6%) with a complication rate of 1.80% and smoking as a risk factor (RR 2.73, P = 0.03). Conclusions: Incidence of major complications after breast cosmetic surgical procedures is low. Risk factors for major complications include increasing age and BMI. Combining abdominoplasty with any breast procedure increases the risk of major complications. Level of Evidence: 2.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Major Hematomas in Aesthetic Surgery: Analysis of 129,007 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hematomas are one of the most frequent complications following aesthetic surgery. Identifying risk factors for hematoma has been limited by underpowered studies from single institution experiences. OBJECTIVES: To examine the incidence and identify independent risk factors for postoperative hematomas following cosmetic surgery utilizing a prospective, multicenter database. METHODS: A prospectively enrolled cohort of patients who underwent aesthetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Primary outcome was occurrence of major hematomas requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify potential risk factors for hematomas including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, procedure by body region, and combined procedures. RESULTS: Of 129,007 patients, 1180 (0.91%) had a major hematoma. Mean age (42.0 ± 13.0 years vs 40.9 ± 13.9 years, P < 0.01) and BMI (24.5 ± 5.0 kg/m2 vs 24.3 ± 4.6 kg/m2, P < 0.01) were higher in patients with hematomas. Males suffered more hematomas than females (1.4% vs 0.9%, P < 0.01). Hematoma rates were higher in patients undergoing combined procedures compared to single procedures (1.1% vs 0.8%, P < 0.01), and breast procedures compared to body/extremity or face procedures (1.0% vs 0.8% vs 0.7%, P < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of hematoma included age (Relative Risk [RR] 1.01), male gender (RR 1.98), the procedure being performed in a hospital setting rather than an office-based setting (RR 1.68), combined procedures (RR 1.35), and breast procedures rather than the body/extremity and face procedures (RR 1.81). CONCLUSIONS: Major hematoma is the most common complication following aesthetic surgery. Male patients and those undergoing breast or combined procedures have a significantly higher risk of developing hematomas. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.