Abstract
In this paper, we present a simple way to place the implant into a harvested pocket and to subsequently fix it percutaneously. Eighteen patients (1 male, 13 females, 4 transgender), underwent facial implant placement; a total of 31 implants were placed (1 pair of angles of the mandible implants, 12 pairs of malar/sub-malar implants, and 5 chin implants). The intraoral approach was performed on 15 patients, and on the remaining three patients, the sub-ciliary lower lid approach was preferred. Patients were followed up for at least one year with a maximum follow-up of seven years (mean 1.8 years). In all the cases, except one, patients healed without complications. One case of implant displacement and infection was recorded. No other complication was documented. The technique described is similar to the one suggested by Peled, although some useful tips were added, namely the use of sutures, not only to fix the implant but also to drive it into the harvested pocket. In addition, larger absorbable “left in place” sutures were used, avoiding accidental implant dislocation during their removal. Further studies are required to gain a more complete understanding of the effectiveness and reproducibility of this surgical technique.
Highlights
Due to their efficiency and ease of handling, the use of implantable alloplastic biomaterials has become an integral part of facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery
The fixation of silicone implants can be performed with several techniques, materials used nowadays are High-Density Porous Polyethylene (Medpor) is exclusively fixed with screws
The technique described in this case series is similar to the one suggested by Peled, some variations have been added
Summary
Due to their efficiency and ease of handling, the use of implantable alloplastic biomaterials has become an integral part of facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery. These materials are suited to be used both in pathological conditions (oncological, post-traumatic, or congenital) and cosmetics. Despite the use of autogenous tissues is considered the gold standard, several disadvantages such as long operative and aftercare times, donor site morbidity, and modeling limitations should be taken into account. The ideal facial implant should be capable of being placed and permanently maintain its form and position. The preferable implant material can often vary according to the anatomical site and the surgeon’s preference [1]. The ideal implant material should be cost-effective, safe, non-antigenic, Appl.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
