We have located links that may give you full text access.
Malar augmentation: a 5-year retrospective review of the silastic midfacial malar implant.
Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery 1999 September
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of the Silastic midfacial malar implant and to review indications, patient selection, technique, and complications of malar augmentation.
DESIGN: Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up.
PATIENTS: A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry.
SETTING: A plastic surgery clinic.
INTERVENTION: Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the canine fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective patient satisfaction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications.
RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty.
DESIGN: Five-year retrospective review of clinical cases with at least 2-year follow-up.
PATIENTS: A cohort of 60 consecutive private patients with complaints of malar hypoplasia or facial asymmetry.
SETTING: A plastic surgery clinic.
INTERVENTION: Silastic midfacial malar implants were fitted in each patient. Most underwent implantation via the canine fossa approach and in conjunction with another facial plastic procedure.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjective patient satisfaction, photographic grading using a visual analog scale, and complications.
RESULTS: Of the 60 patients, 51 (85.0%) reported an excellent result after at least a 2-year follow-up. Ten patients (16.7%) had some form of undesirable sequelae; however, only 4 (3.4%) of 118 implants had to be revised. Photographically, all 60 patients graded postoperative improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the contention that the Silastic midfacial malar implant is a safe and effective alloplastic alternative to treat malar hypoplasia and facial asymmetry. The complication and revision rates are acceptable. Relative technical ease of insertion makes malar augmentation an excellent adjunct for rhytidectomy and rhinoplasty.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
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