CLINICAL TRIAL
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Multicenter evaluation of subcutaneous augmentation material implants.
Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 2003 March
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of subcutaneous augmentation material preformed shapes for facial implantation.
DESIGN: One-year prospective multicenter evaluation of implant performance.
SETTING: General community hospital; private and institutional practice; and ambulatory care setting.
PATIENTS: Eighty-two patients undergoing elective cosmetic and reconstructive procedures.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients received nasal dorsal implants (31 patients); chin implants (38 patients); and malar implants (13 patients).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and aesthetic outcome, including implant position, projection, contour, symmetry, and overall aesthetic index.
RESULTS: Complication rates for infection that required implant removal included nasal dorsal implants, 3.2%; chin implants, 5.3%; and malar implants, 3.8%. The overall aesthetic outcome was judged by an independent panel of facial plastic surgeons on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent): nasal dorsal implants scored 4.1; chin implants, 3.8; and malar implants, 3.6.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subcutaneous augmentation material preformed shapes offer a relatively safe and effective treatment alternative for permanent facial augmentation.
DESIGN: One-year prospective multicenter evaluation of implant performance.
SETTING: General community hospital; private and institutional practice; and ambulatory care setting.
PATIENTS: Eighty-two patients undergoing elective cosmetic and reconstructive procedures.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients received nasal dorsal implants (31 patients); chin implants (38 patients); and malar implants (13 patients).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and aesthetic outcome, including implant position, projection, contour, symmetry, and overall aesthetic index.
RESULTS: Complication rates for infection that required implant removal included nasal dorsal implants, 3.2%; chin implants, 5.3%; and malar implants, 3.8%. The overall aesthetic outcome was judged by an independent panel of facial plastic surgeons on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent): nasal dorsal implants scored 4.1; chin implants, 3.8; and malar implants, 3.6.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that subcutaneous augmentation material preformed shapes offer a relatively safe and effective treatment alternative for permanent facial augmentation.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Management of type 2 diabetes in the new era.Hormones : International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism 2023 September 14
Beta-blocker therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: not all patients need it.Acute and critical care. 2023 August
The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation.Journal of Intensive Care 2023 May 24
Pharmacological Treatments in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JACC. Heart Failure 2023 August 26
Hypertensive Heart Failure.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2023 August 3
SGLT2 Inhibitors vs. GLP-1 Agonists to Treat the Heart, the Kidneys and the Brain.Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 2023 July 31
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app