The latest medical research on Cosmetic Surgery

Reduction mammoplasty relieves macromastia symptoms while improving breast aesthetics, though the ideal breast aesthetically has been shown to differ culturally in previous crowdsourcing studies. Better understanding these differences can aid in setting postoperative expectations.

The aim of this study was to characterize the ideal reduction mammoplasty according to demographics such as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education.

A crowdsourcing platform was used to collect 10,169 de-identified responses. Users completed one of three surveys, either a preoperative, postoperative, or preoperative and postoperative paired survey. The preoperative and postoperative surveys addressed 10 breast measurements including upper breast slope, projection proportion, nipple position, breast width, and breast fullness. The paired pre- and postoperative survey assessed nipple areolar complex (NAC), chest fit, symmetry improvement, and scarring.

Preoperative images were rated more aesthetic than postoperative images. This was consistent across all demographics evaluated. Female, African American, Asian, participants aged 55+, and participants with no high school degree or a graduate degree found the most improvement in breast symmetry (p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.027, p < 0.001, p = 0.01). Male and Hispanic participants were most likely to see no change in symmetry (p = 0.008, p = 0.04), and South Asian participants found breasts less symmetric postoperative (p < 0.001). There were significant demographic differences in aesthetic ratings of NAC, scarring, and breast fit.

Perceived breast aesthetics after reduction mammoplasty vary significantly across demographics including gender, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, and educational achievement. Surgeons should consider demographics when planning each patient's reduction mammoplasty.

3D facial stereophotogrammetry, as a convenient, non-invasive and highly reliable evaluation tool, has shown great potential in pre-operative planning and treatment efficacy evaluation of plastic surgery in recent years. However, it requires manual identification of facial landmarks by trained evaluators to obtain anthropometric data, which consumes large amount of time and effort. Automatic 3D facial landmark localization may facilitate fast data acquisition and eliminate evaluator error.

In this paper, we propose a novel deep-learning method based on dimension-transformation and key-point detection for automated 3D perioral landmark annotation.

The 3D facial model is transformed into 2D images on which High-Resolution Network is implemented for key point detection. The 2D coordinates of key points are then mapped back to the 3D model using mathematical methods to obtain the 3D landmark coordinates. This program was trained with 120 facial models and validated in 50 facial models.

Our approach achieved satisfactory accuracy of 1.30 ± 0.68 mm error in landmark detection with an average processing time of 5.2 ± 0.21 seconds per model. And subsequent analysis based on these landmarks showed an error of 0.87 ± 1.02 mm for linear measurements and 5.62 ± 6.61° for angular measurements.

This automated 3D perioral landmarking method could serve as an effective tool that enables fast and accurate anthropometric analysis of lip morphology for plastic surgery and aesthetic procedures.

The vector of aging and consequently the vector of lift in rhytidectomy has aided surgeons to improve movement of tissues during facial rejuvenation procedures.

To analyze the vector of lift in patients undergoing primary and revision facelift in order to achieve proper vectorial lifting.

Patients undergoing deep plane facelift surgery were included for analysis. Intraoperative photographs and measurements were taken of the skin, SMAS and platysmal suture suspension with mastoid crevasse inset. Measurements were compared between patients who were undergoing primary vs secondary surgery, site of lift, age and gender.

71 patients (90% female, mean age 57.8) with a total of 142 hemi-faces were analyzed, 57 (73%) of which were primary, and 14(27%) were secondary facelifts. The average vector of SMAS lifting was 70.8 degrees. Females had a more vertical vector vs males (71.3 vs 65.4; p < 0.01). The average vector of platysmal and skin lift were 87.0, and 58.2 degrees respectively. There was intrasubject difference between hemifaces. Despite there being more inter-suture disparity in secondary cases vs primary cases (16.9 vs 4.5; p < 0.05), the mean vector of lifting was similar between them.

Proper release of the deep plane helps determine the appropriate vectors of lift without relying on guidelines based on population averages. Each patient presents with a unique vector required to correct their descent. This technique provides an optimal result by directly suspending against the vectors of greatest descent.

In 2022, the US experienced a significant increase in demand for minimally invasive aesthetic procedures, underscoring its rising acceptance amidst an unregulated educational environment for practitioners. The absence of standardized educational pathways and quality control in aesthetic medicine, primarily provided by non-academic institutions, highlights a critical need for establishing educational standards to ensure practitioner competence and patient safety.

To identify levels of competency for the aesthetic practitioner and for necessary achievement milestones during the educational path from novice to expert injector.

A total of n = 386 international study participants responded to an online questionnaire regarding their experience in aesthetic medicine practice. The questionnaire comprised 58 questions focusing on professional data, the perceived difficulty of injection and risk for the occurrence of adverse events for specific facial regions in soft tissue filler and toxin injections.

Regardless of medical specialty and experience level, an average of 3.85 (1.8) years, 786.4 (2,628) filler injections, and 549.9 (1,543) toxin injections was estimated to progress from novice to advanced injector, while an average of 6.10 (3.7) years, 1,842.2 (4,793) filler injections, and 1,308.5 (3,363) injections was estimated to advance from advanced to expert injector. The nose and the perioral region have been ranked as the facial regions most difficult to achieve a perfect aesthetic outcome and with the greatest risk for the occurrence of adverse events for filler and toxin injections, respectively.

This study establishes an educational framework in aesthetic medicine by defining the progression from novice to competent and expert injector levels, suggesting 4 years of practice and over 790 filler and 550 neuromodulator injections for competence, and at least 6 years with 1,840 filler and 1,310 neuromodulator injections for expertise. It also identifies critical facial regions for targeted treatments by different expertise levels.

Breast implant illness (BII) has become a contentious subject in recent years. While some studies have reported associations between breast implants and autoimmune diseases, others have failed to establish a definitive link.

The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date evaluation of the literature surrounding BII, with an emphasis on identifying patient-related factors that may be associated with BII.

A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines using Pubmed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to search for relevant studies published in the last twenty years.

Thirty-one studies were included with a total of 39,505 implant patients and mean age of 44.2 ± 9.30 years. Fifteen studies reported implant explantation status with 72.4% patients choosing to remove their implants. Among these, nine studies reported symptom improvement in 83.5% patients. Fifty-three percent of patients undergoing explantation had total capsulectomy. Twenty-eight studies documented total numbers of patients experiencing symptoms related to BII, with 31.3% patients reporting such symptoms. Among these, sixteen studies of 4,109 BII patients distinguished whether the reason for implantation was cosmetic augmentation or reconstruction. When specified, more patients experiencing BII-related symptoms received implants for "cosmetic" versus "reconstructive" reasons (Cosmetic: 3,864/4,109; 94.0% vs. Reconstruction: 245/4,109; 5.96%, p < 0.001).

This review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding BII. Our study highlights a potential relationship between BII and indication for implants (cosmetic vs. reconstructive) among other variables, offering valuable insight on factors associated with BII and directions for future research.