Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2020; 36(06): 684-687
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721104
Original Article

Practical Considerations in Adopting New Technology for Facial Cosmetic Procedures

Joseph J. Rousso
1   Manhatten Facial Plastic Surgery and ENT, New York, New York
2   Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The field of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery encompasses both surgical and nonsurgical facets, creating a supplemental level of care and an additional layer of complexity. Determining the “best course of care” can be very difficult in experienced situations, but even more so when considering adopting an emerging technology. A basic and practical method of analyzing a new technology requires investigating the risk-to-benefit assessment, the utility and clinical outcomes compared with other treatment options, and an introspective ethical appraisal of whether the technology is foremost for patient care purposes. Even after employing a new technology, constant monitoring and reevaluation of the results is necessary to determine if it should be continued or altered.

Keywords

facial plastic surgery - emerging technologies - minimally invasive - facelift - face tightening


Publication History

Article published online:
24 December 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Li D, Lin SB, Cheng B. Complications and posttreatment care following invasive laser skin resurfacing: a review. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2018; 20 (03) 168-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 You HJ, Kim DW, Yoon ES, Park SH. Comparison of four different lasers for acne scars: Resurfacing and fractional lasers. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (04) e87-e95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Carniol PJ, Hamilton MM, Carniol ET. Current Status of Fractional Laser Resurfacing. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (05) 360-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 AAFPRS, Academy Committees. Accessed on September 15, 2020 at: https://www.aafprs.org/Professionals/Membership/Academy_Committees.aspx
  • 5 Fahim G, Toscani M, Barone JA, Wang C, Gandhi S. Evaluation of risk versus benefit information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug television advertisements. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2018; 52 (01) 114-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Devgan L, Singh P, Durairaj K. Surgical cosmetic procedures of the face. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2019; 52 (03) 425-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Alhaddad M, Wu DC, Bolton J. et al. A randomized split face, evaluator blind clinical trial comparing monopolar radiofrequency versus microfocused ultrasound with visualization for lifting and tightening of the face and upper neck. Dermatol Surg 2019; 45 (01) 131-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Oni G, Hoxworth R, Teotia S, Brown S, Kenkel JM. Evaluation of a microfocused ultrasound system for improving skin laxity and tightening in the lower face. Aesthet Surg J 2014; 34 (07) 1099-1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fabi SG, Goldman MP. Retrospective evaluation of micro-focused ultrasound for lifting and tightening the face and neck. Dermatol Surg 2014; 40 (05) 569-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Atiyeh BS, Rubeiz MT, Hayek SN. Aesthetic/cosmetic surgery and ethical challenges. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2008; 32 (06) 829-839 , discussion 840–841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim JE, Sykes JM. Hyaluronic acid fillers: history and overview. Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27 (06) 523-528
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 O'Brien CM, Thorburn TG, Sibbel-Linz A, McGregor AD. Consent for plastic surgical procedures. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2006; 59 (09) 983-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar