Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia Following Cryolipolysis.

Cryolipolysis (CL) is a noninvasive technique that uses applicators to cool tissue to temperatures that selectively destroy adipocytes. Since its introduction to the market, it has rapidly become one of the leading non-surgical modalities to reduce fat in the aesthetic industry. Paradoxical Adipose Hyperplasia (PAH) is an adverse reaction to CL, whereby there is initial reduction in fat volume, followed by abnormal fat growth exceeding the original volume in the treated area. The incidence of PAH is thought to be underreported, and its pathophysiology and management remains unclear. The objective of this study was to present a series of PAH cases and review efficacy of management modalities.

Clinical Practice Patterns in Facelift Surgery: A 15-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates change in practice patterns in facelift surgery based on a 15-year review of tracer data collected by the American Board of Plastic Surgery as part of the Continuous Certification process. METHODS: Tracer data for facelift was reviewed from 2006 to 2021. The 15-year collection period was divided into an "early cohort (EC)" from 2006 to 2014 and a "recent cohort (RC)" from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: Of 3400 facelifts (1710 EC/1690 RC) performed, 18% were done in hospital and 76% were done in an accredited office facility. Ninety one percent of patients were female with an average age of 61 years. There was an increase in the number of secondary facelifts (4% EC vs 18% RC; p < 0.001) and an increased number of patients concerned about volume loss/deflation (25% EC vs 37% RC; p < 0.001). The surgical approach to the SMAS involved plication (40%), flaps (35%), SMASectomy (22%) and MACS lift (6%). One percent of facelifts were subperiosteal and 8% skin-only. Significantly more surgeons used the lateral SMAS flap (14% EC vs 18% RC, p < 0.005), while less used an extended SMAS flap (21% vs 18%; p = 0.001) and MACS lift (10% EC vs 6% RC; p = 0.021) techniques. The concomitant use of facial fat grafting is becoming more common (15% EC vs 24% RC, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A 15-year review of ABPS tracer data provides an excellent venue for the objective assessment of the current status of facelift surgery, and key changes in practice patterns during that time. 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 .

Clinical Practice Patterns in Abdominoplasty: 16-Year Analysis of Continuous Certification Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The authors evaluated trends in practice patterns for abdominoplasty based on a 16-year review of tracer data collected by the American Board of Plastic Surgery as part of the continuous certification process. METHODS: To facilitate comparison of an equal number of patients over time, tracer data from 2005 to 2021 were split into an early cohort (EC) (from 2005 to 2014) and a recent cohort (RC) (from 2015 to 2021). Fisher exact tests and two-sample t tests were used to compare patient demographics, surgical techniques, and complication rates. RESULTS: Data from 8990 abdominoplasties (EC, n = 4740; RC, n = 4250) were analyzed. RC abdominoplasties report a lower rate of complications (RC, 19%; EC, 22%; P < 0.001) and a lower rate of revision surgery (RC 8%; EC, 10%; P < 0.001). This has occurred despite the increased use of abdominal flap liposuction (RC, 25%; EC, 18%; P < 0.001). There has been a decline in the use of wide undermining (81% versus 75%; P < 0.001), vertical plication of the abdomen (89% versus 86%; P < 0.001), and surgical drains (93% versus 89%; P < 0.001). Abdominoplasty surgery is increasingly performed in an outpatient setting, with increased use of chemoprophylaxis for thrombosis prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of these American Board of Plastic Surgery tracer data highlights important trends in clinical practice over the past 16 years. Abdominoplasty continues to be a safe and effective procedure with similar complication and revision rates over the 16-year period.

Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Rhinoplasty: A 10-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) has collected data on cosmetic surgery from member surgeons since 2003. These data offer valuable information on national trends in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The present study was performed to analyze trends in rhinoplasty over the last decade. METHODS: Tracer data were compared between two cohorts 2012-2016 (early cohort "EC") and 2017-2021 (recent cohort "RC"). Data included patient demographics and surgical techniques. Results were considered in the context of current EBM-based guidance in the plastic surgery literature. RESULTS: Data from 730 rhinoplasties (270 EC and 460 RC) were analyzed. The median age was 30 years, and the most common patient concern was the nasal dorsum (79%). In the RC group, fewer patients voiced concerns about tip projection (58% vs 43%, p = 0.0002) and more complained of functional airway problems (38% vs 49%, p = 0.004). An open approach was most common (83%). Septoplasty (47% vs 52%, p = 0.005), caudal septum repositioning (14% vs 23%, p = 0.002), and tip rotation maneuvers (32% vs 49%, p < 0.0001) became more popular. There was also an increase in the use of spreader grafts (35% vs 45%, p = 0.01) and columellar strut grafts (42% vs 50%, p = 0.04), while there has been a decrease in alar base resection (17% vs 10%, p = 0.007) and non-cartilaginous dorsum/radix augmentation (9% vs 4%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: ABPS tracer data provide an excellent resource for the objective assessment of procedures in plastic surgery. The present study is the first to highlight evolving trends in rhinoplasty over the last 10 years. 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 .

Practice Patterns: An American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) Member Survey, 2000 and 2020-How Much Has Brow Lifting Changed?

BACKGROUND: In 2001, Elkwood and Matarasso published an American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) member survey detailing brow lift practice patterns. Interval changes in practice patterns have not been studied. OBJECTIVES: The previous survey was revised to elucidate current trends in brow lift surgery. METHODS: A 34-question descriptive survey was distributed to a random group of 2360 ASPS members. Results were compared to the 2001 survey. RESULTS: A total of 257 responses were collected (11% response rate; ± 6% margin of error at 95% CI). The most frequent technique for the correction of brow ptosis in both surveys was the endoscopic approach. The use of hardware fixation has increased in endoscopic brow lifting, whereas the use of cortical tunnels has decreased. Although coronal brow lifting has decreased in frequency, hairline and isolated temporal lift have increased. Neuromodulators have replaced resurfacing techniques as the most common nonsurgical adjunct. Frequent use of neuromodulators has risen from 11.2% to 88.5%. Nearly 30% of current surgeons feel that neuromodulators have replaced formal brow lifting procedures to a significant degree. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing the 2001 and current ASPS member survey there has been a clear transition to less invasive procedures over time. Although the endoscopic approach was the most popular means of forehead correction in both surveys, coronal brow lifting has decreased in frequency and the hairline and temporal approaches have increased. Neurotoxins have replaced laser resurfacing and chemical peeling methods as an adjunct, and in some cases replaced the invasive procedure entirely. Possible explanations for these findings will be discussed.

Practice Patterns in Primary Breast Augmentation: A 16-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: As part of the continuous certification process, the American Board of Plastic Surgery collects case data for specific tracer procedures in aesthetic surgery to assess practice improvement by the diplomates. These case-based data provide valuable information on national trends in clinical practice. The current study was performed to analyze practice patterns in aesthetic primary breast augmentation. METHODS: Breast augmentation tracer data were reviewed from 2005 to 2021 and grouped into an early cohort (EC), from 2005 through 2014, and a recent cohort (RC), from 2015 through 2021. Fisher exact tests and two-sample t tests compared demographic characteristics of the patients, surgical techniques, and complication rates. RESULTS: Patients in the RC were slightly older (34 versus 35 years; P < 0.001), more likely to have ptosis greater than 22 cm (20% versus 23%; P < 0.0001), less likely to smoke (12% versus 8%; P < 0.0001), and less likely to undergo a preoperative mammogram (29% versus 24%; P < 0.0001). From a technical standpoint, inframammary incisions have become more common (68% versus 80%; P < 0.0001), whereas periareolar incision use has decreased (24% versus 14%; P < 0.0001). Submuscular plane placement has increased (22% versus 56%; P < 0.0001), while subglandular placement has decreased (19% versus 7%; P < 0.0001). Silicone implants are most popular (58% versus 82%; P < 0.0001). Textured implant use increased from 2011 (2%) to 2016 (16%), followed by a sharp decline to 0% by 2021. Trends follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals and warnings. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights evolving trends in aesthetic breast augmentation over the past 16 years. The most common technique remains a smooth silicone prosthesis placed in the subpectoral plane through an inframammary incision.

A 16-Year Review of Clinical Practice Patterns in Liposuction Based on Continuous Certification by the American Board of Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Plastic Surgery has collected data on cosmetic surgery tracers as part of the Continuous Certification process since 2005. The current study was performed to analyze evolving trends in liposuction from the American Board of Plastic Surgery database. METHODS: Tracer data from 2005 through 2021 were reviewed and grouped into an early cohort (EC) (2005-2014) and a recent cohort (RC) (2015-2021). Fisher exact tests and two-sample t tests were used to compare patient demographics, techniques, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 2810 suction-assisted liposuction cases were included (1150 EC, 1660 RC). In-office procedures increased (36% EC versus 41% RC). The use of general anesthesia remained the same (63% EC versus 62% RC). The use of power-assisted liposuction increased (24% EC versus 40% RC) and use of ultrasound-assisted liposuction decreased (5% versus 2%). With respect to body areas treated, liposuction of the abdomen (64% EC versus 69% RC), flanks (60% EC versus 64% RC), and back (22% EC versus 34% RC) increased; treatments of thighs (36% EC versus 23% RC), and knees (8% EC versus 5% RC) decreased. Intraoperative position changes are more common (30% EC versus 37% RC), as is liposuction of multiple areas in one case (28% EC versus 36% RC). The volume of lipoaspirate also increased (1150 cc EC versus 1660 cc RC). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights evolving trends in liposuction over 16 years. Liposuction is becoming more common as an outpatient procedure performed concomitantly with other procedures. Despite multiple emerging technologies, the popularity of power-assisted liposuction is increasing. Although adverse events have not significantly increased with these changes, the authors stress careful preoperative evaluation of patients to identify factors that increase the risk of complications.

Subcutaneous Lateral Temporal Lift.

Over the past decades, the understanding of the nuances of forehead anatomy and facial aging has grown immensely. Safe and reliable options for forehead rejuvenation followed. Although noninvasive techniques are an important adjunct in forehead rejuvenation, the mainstay of treatment of the eyebrow is operative intervention. The senior author's technique has developed over many years, first focusing on the open coronal and anterior hairline approach to the forehead lift, then the endoscopic brow lift, and most recently, the lateral subcutaneous temporal lift. This technique allows for reliable and safe elevation of the lateral brow with minimal complications.

The Male Abdominoplasty.

Although body contouring has long been considered a female-dominated market, growing popularity among men has led to shifting market focus. The increase in male body contouring surgery has been fueled by increased recognition of its safety and efficacy, decreased stigma via social media awareness, and increasing desire among men who seek to remain competitive in the workforce. The growth of bariatric surgery has only compounded such trends, with a growing population of men seeking excisional procedures following massive weight loss. The authors review key features of the modern male abdominoplasty, with respect to anatomy, patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative outcomes.

High-Definition Liposuction in Men.

Liposuction is the most common procedure in plastic surgery and becoming increasingly common in male patients. Recently, liposuction has evolved from a procedure whose goal was primarily fat extraction, to one that sculpts tissue with the goal of enhancing muscular definition. The popularity of high-definition liposuction has increased rapidly due to visibility on social media and has broadened the patient population presenting for liposuction, particularly among men. Herein, the authors review patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative outcomes following high-definition liposuction in male patients.

Face Lift Practice Patterns: An American Society of Plastic Surgeons Member Survey, 2000 and 2020. How Much Have We Changed?

BACKGROUND: In 2000, Matarasso et al. performed a survey of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members' face lift practice patterns. Since that publication, the aesthetic marketplace has changed dramatically, as have ancillary face lift techniques. In an attempt to detail these changes, we repeated that original survey, adding questions to address more recent technical issues and advances. The goal of this report was to define current face lift practice patterns, compare current patterns to the previous ones, and define recent advances. METHODS: A 38-question survey assessing face lift techniques, perioperative management, complications, and concomitant procedures was electronically distributed to a random cohort of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed utilizing the Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 251 forms were returned and analyzed. Details of demographics, face lift techniques, ancillary procedures, perioperative care, and complications are presented. Current results were compared to the previously published society member practice patterns delineated in the 2000 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery publication. CONCLUSIONS: The basic approach of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members to the face lift operation has not changed dramatically over the past 20 years. The development of operative adjuncts, however, has been positive, including fat grafting techniques, concomitant use of skin resurfacing, and means of minimizing blood loss with tranexamic acid. In certain instances, respondents do not follow evidence-based guidelines for perioperative care. Finally, common complications of practicing members appear to coincide with published retrospective reviews.

Mastery of Basic Rhinology: An Important Tool for the Modern Rhinoplasty Specialist.

Rhinology is the branch of medicine that deals with nasal function as part of the respiratory apparatus. It is a fundamental component of otolaryngology curricula and thus generously found in that specialty's literature. Ear, nose, and throat specialists who have made aesthetic rhinoplasty a cornerstone of their practice have understood the importance of rhinology for years. We propose that deeper knowledge and understanding of rhinology would be incredibly useful for the cosmetic rhinoplasty surgeon, especially the one who has no formal training in otolaryngology. This is of critical importance because sometimes, cosmetic rhinoplasties may have negative repercussions on nasal function, a problem that must be dealt with either preemptively at the time of surgery or at a revision procedure. Moreover, many of today's rhinoplasty patients are seeking comprehensive surgical care by a specialist who can manage both aesthetic and functional concerns in a single operation.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Rhinoplasty: A Multidisciplinary Performance Measure Set.

SUMMARY: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery commissioned the multidisciplinary Rhinoplasty Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing both functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. One outcome measure and three process measures were identified. The outcome looked at patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty procedures. The process measures look at motivations and expectations of the procedure, airway assessment, and nonnarcotic shared decision-making strategies for pain management. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and Executive Committee, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Rhinoplasty Society, and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

Standards and Trends in Lipoabdominoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Lipoabdominoplasty has evolved over the last 6 decades through contributions from numerous luminaries in plastic and reconstructive surgery. METHODS: The authors review historical perspective and provide a contemporary examination of trends in lipoabdominoplasty. RESULTS: In 1967, Pitanguy popularized abdominoplasty (without liposuction) as a technique for augmenting ventral hernias repairs and subsequently for aesthetic improvement of the abdomen. After the introduction of suction assisted lipectomy by Illouz in 1983, abdominoplasty became a central tool in a diverse armamentarium of anterior and lateral abdominal wall contouring procedures. Liposuction was initially utilized with mini-abdominoplasty in order to improve contour. Subsequently, Matarasso advanced the safe combination of liposuction with full abdominoplasty. Additionally, he systematized the variety of cutaneous undermining, excision, and liposuction procedures utilized in abdominal contouring as indicated by the degree of skin laxity and musculofascial diastasis. Lockwood advocated high lateral tension closure of the superficial fascial system of the abdomen to improve the contour of the hips and flanks. Saldanha advanced selective undermining and anterior abdominal wall perforator preservation to minimize wound healing and seroma complications associated with lipoabdominoplasty procedures. CONCLUSION: In abdominal contour surgery, surgeons can rely on classic techniques and algorithms that have withstood the test of time while modifying their approaches with advances backed by compelling and rigorously obtained evidence.