Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2015
Midface rejuvenation: a critical evaluation of a 7-year experience.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pascali Michele, Botti Chiara, Cervelli Valerio, Botti Giovanni
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although "traditional" face-lifting techniques can achieve excellent improvement along the jawline and neck, they often have little impact on the midface area. Thus, many different types of procedures have been developed to provide rejuvenation in this region, usually contemplating various dissection planes, incisions, and suspension vectors.
METHODS: A 7-year observational study of 350 patients undergoing midface lift was analyzed. The authors suspended the midface flap, anchoring to the deep temporal aponeurosis with a suspender-like suture (superolateral vector), or directly to the lower orbital rim with a belt-like suture (superomedial vector). Subjective and objective methods were used to evaluate the results. The subjective methods included a questionnaire completed by the patients. The objective method involved the evaluation of preoperative and postoperative photographs by a three-member jury instructed to compare the "critical" anatomical areas of the midface region: malar eminence, nasojugal groove, nasolabial fold, and jowls in the lower portion of the cheeks. The average follow-up period was 24 months.
RESULTS: High satisfaction was noticeable from the perceptions of both the jury and the patients. Objective evaluation evidenced that midface lift with temporal anchoring was more efficient for the treatment of malar eminence, whereas midface lift with transosseous periorbital anchoring was more efficient for the treatment of nasojugal groove.
CONCLUSIONS: The most satisfying aspect of the adopted techniques is a dramatic facial rejuvenation and preservation of the patient's original youthful identity. Furthermore, choosing the most suitable technique respects the patient's needs and enables correction of the specific defects.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
METHODS: A 7-year observational study of 350 patients undergoing midface lift was analyzed. The authors suspended the midface flap, anchoring to the deep temporal aponeurosis with a suspender-like suture (superolateral vector), or directly to the lower orbital rim with a belt-like suture (superomedial vector). Subjective and objective methods were used to evaluate the results. The subjective methods included a questionnaire completed by the patients. The objective method involved the evaluation of preoperative and postoperative photographs by a three-member jury instructed to compare the "critical" anatomical areas of the midface region: malar eminence, nasojugal groove, nasolabial fold, and jowls in the lower portion of the cheeks. The average follow-up period was 24 months.
RESULTS: High satisfaction was noticeable from the perceptions of both the jury and the patients. Objective evaluation evidenced that midface lift with temporal anchoring was more efficient for the treatment of malar eminence, whereas midface lift with transosseous periorbital anchoring was more efficient for the treatment of nasojugal groove.
CONCLUSIONS: The most satisfying aspect of the adopted techniques is a dramatic facial rejuvenation and preservation of the patient's original youthful identity. Furthermore, choosing the most suitable technique respects the patient's needs and enables correction of the specific defects.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.