Global aesthetic surgery statistics: a closer look.

INTRODUCTION: Obtaining quality global statistics about surgical procedures remains an important yet challenging task. The International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) reports the total number of surgical and non-surgical procedures performed worldwide on a yearly basis. While providing valuable insight, ISAPS' statistics leave two important factors unaccounted for: (1) the underlying base population, and (2) the number of surgeons performing the procedures. METHODS: Statistics of the published ISAPS' 'International Survey on Aesthetic/Cosmetic Surgery' were analysed by country, taking into account the underlying national base population according to the official United Nations population estimates. Further, the number of surgeons per country was used to calculate the number of surgeries performed per surgeon. RESULTS: In 2014, based on ISAPS statistics, national surgical procedures ranked in the following order: 1st USA, 2nd Brazil, 3rd South Korea, 4th Mexico, 5th Japan, 6th Germany, 7th Colombia, and 8th France. When considering the size of the underlying national populations, the demand for surgical procedures per 100,000 people changes the overall ranking substantially. It was also found that the rate of surgical procedures per surgeon shows great variation between the responding countries. CONCLUSION: While the US and Brazil are often quoted as the countries with the highest demand for plastic surgery, according to the presented analysis, other countries surpass these countries in surgical procedures per capita. While data acquisition and quality should be improved in the future, valuable insight regarding the demand for surgical procedures can be gained by taking specific demographic and geographic factors into consideration.

Macrostomia: a spectrum of deformity.

BACKGROUND: Macrostomia is a rare facial cleft, with an incompletely described pathogenesis. This series highlights cases of isolated macrostomia presenting with several distinct phenotypes. We examine phenotypic differences in macrostomia patients, to further elucidate the etiopathogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of macrostomia patients evaluated during a 10-year period. Patient demographics and clinical features are reported. RESULTS: We identified 25 macrostomia patients (13M/12F). Right-sided macrostomia occurred in 15, left-sided macrostomia occurred in 6, and bilateral macrostomia occurred in 4 patients. Of the bilateral cases, 100% existed in isolation of craniofacial microsomia (CFM) or other craniofacial abnormalities. Twelve patients presented with macrostomia in isolation of CFM; in this subgroup, the male-to-female ratio was 1:1. Bilateral macrostomia was present in 33% of patients. Unilateral macrostomia occurred more often on the right (5:2). Phenotypes included simple unilateral or bilateral macrostomia (67%), macrostomia associated with severe diastasis of the cheek musculature (8%), macrostomia associated with lateral facial clefts (17%), and diastasis of cheek musculature without significant macrostomia (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Macrostomia seen in isolation of CFM presents in phenotypically distinct forms. It is unlikely that a single mechanism is responsible for this range of phenotypes. We believe that both intrauterine trauma and failure of fusion of the mandibular and maxillary processes secondary to an aberration in FGF8 function are responsible. Additionally, diastasis of facial musculature may result from delayed fusion and subsequent decreased mesodermal penetration of the mandibular and maxillary processes.