May 06, 2015
1 min read
Save

Two midface lift anchor techniques offer efficient treatment of malar eminence, nasojugal groove

You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Through a review of 7-year observational data from 350 midface lift patients, temporal anchoring was shown to more efficiently treat malar eminence, whereas transosseous periorbital anchoring was more efficient for the treatment of nasojugal groove, according to recently published findings in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal.

Results were quantified subjectively through patient questionnaires and objectively analyzed through the review of preoperative and postoperative photographs by a jury comparing the anatomical areas of the midface region. Average follow-up was 24 months.

To suspend the midface flap, surgeons used one of two procedures: anchoring the flap to the deep temporal aponeurosis with a suspender-like suture (superolateral vector), or anchoring the flap directly to the lower orbital rim using a belt-like suture (superomedial vector).

Of the 350 patients studied, 94 underwent midface lifting as a sole procedure, and 256 had midface lifting combined with face lifting.

At 6 months, patients’ self-evaluation scores were similar for both groups, ranging from 5.4 to 10, with an average score of 8.1. Additionally, the Mann-Whitney U test did not demonstrate any significant differences between the scores for the two techniques, according to the researchers.

The three independent jury observers found temporal anchoring was more efficient in treating malar eminence, and periorbital anchoring was observed to be more effective in treating nasojugal groove.

All postsurgical complications were resolved by massage and exercise in approximately 2 months, according to the researchers.

The researchers concluded that the choice of traction vector used, as well as the determination of which procedure to use, must be based on each patient’s specific needs. – by Abigail Sutton

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.