Safety of Concurrent Endoscopic Browlift and Blepharoplasty

Nikolaus Hjelm; Akshay Sanan; Howard Krein; Ryan N. Heffelfinger

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1695724

Facial Plastic Surgery, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Facial Plast Surg 2019; 35(05): 546-548
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1695724

Original Research

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Safety of Concurrent Endoscopic Browlift and Blepharoplasty

Authors

Nikolaus Hjelm

¹Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Akshay Sanan

¹Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Howard Krein

¹Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Ryan N. Heffelfinger

¹Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Abstract

The objective of the study was to evaluate the clinical safety of endoscopic browlift alone or in combination with blepharoplasty as a treatment for the aging face. This is a retrospective comparative study from 2007 to 2016 at a single tertiary care center. A consecutive sample of patients undergoing surgery for aging of the upper face was included in the study. Surgeries deemed to be inclusive were endoscopic browlift, upper blepharoplasty, and lower blepharoplasty. In total, 46 patients undergoing endoscopic browlift with concurrent blepharoplasty were included. Patient demographics, past medical history, follow-up, and any complications related to their surgery were studied up to 90 months postoperatively. Combination of endoscopic browlift with blepharoplasty did not increase the risk of complications on univariate analysis (p = 0.735). There were no differences in complication rates on univariate analysis of patients with a smoking history, diabetes, or autoimmune disease (p = 0.111, p = 0.575, p > 0.999, respectively). Furthermore, there was no difference between groups in complication rates, smoking history, diabetes, or autoimmune disease (p = 0.735, p = 0.181, p = 0.310, p = 0.218, respectively). Smoking had an insignificant increased risk of complication as compared with nonsmokers on multivariate analysis (odds ratio [OR] = 4.526; p = 0.073). Increasing age was slightly associated with fewer complications on multivariate analysis in this patient cohort (OR = 0.939; p = 0.048). By combining endoscopic browlift with a concomitant blepharoplasty, the goals of the patient and the standards of the surgeon can be effectively and safely achieved. Analysis of complications from 46 combined cases at our institution asserts that this is a safe operation. Smoking status was the only observed predictor for postoperative complications. This was a level of evidence 3, retrospective comparative study.

Keywords

endoscopic browlift - blepharoplasty - aging face - safety

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Friedland JA, Jacobsen WM, TerKonda S. Safety and efficacy of combined upper blepharoplasties and open coronal browlift: a consecutive series of 600 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1996; 20 (06) 453-462
2 Paul MD. The evolution of the brow lift in aesthetic plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 108 (05) 1409-1424
3 Prischmann J, Sufyan A, Ting JY, Ruffin C, Perkins SW. Dry eye symptoms and chemosis following blepharoplasty: a 10-year retrospective review of 892 cases in a single-surgeon series. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2013; 15 (01) 39-46
4 Lemp MA. Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry workshop on Clinical Trials in Dry Eyes. CLAO J 1995; 21 (04) 221-232
5 Greenhalgh DG. Wound healing and diabetes mellitus. Clin Plast Surg 2003; 30 (01) 37-45
6 Isse NG. Endoscopic facial rejuvenation: endoforehead, the functional lift. Case reports. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1994; 18 (01) 21-29
7 Vasconez LO. The use of the endoscope in brow lifting: a video presentation. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, Washington, DC, 1992
8 Isse NG. Endoscopic forehead lift. Evolution and update. Clin Plast Surg 1995; 22 (04) 661-673
9 Codner MA, Kikkawa DO, Korn BS, Pacella SJ. Blepharoplasty and brow lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (01) 1e-17e
10 Puig CM, LaFerriere KA. A retrospective comparison of open and endoscopic brow-lifts. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2002; 4 (04) 221-225
11 Jones BM, Grover R. Endoscopic brow lift: a personal review of 538 patients and comparison of fixation techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (04) 1242-1250 , discussion 1251–1252
12 Chiu ES, Baker DC. Endoscopic brow lift: a retrospective review of 628 consecutive cases over 5 years. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 112 (02) 628-633 , discussion 634–635
13 Shadfar S, Perkins SW. Surgical treatment of the brow and upper eyelid. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2015; 23 (02) 167-183
14 Adamson PA. The aging forehead. In: Bailey BJ. , ed. Head and Neck Surgery– Otolaryngology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1993: 2258-2275
15 Morax S, Touitou V. Complications of blepharoplasty. Orbit 2006; 25 (04) 303-318
16 Perkins SW, Dyer II WK, Simo F. Transconjunctival approach to lower eyelid blepharoplasty. Experience, indications, and technique in 300 patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994; 120 (02) 172-177
17 Leatherbarrow B, Saha K. Complications of blepharoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2013; 29 (04) 281-288