Subperiosteal Brow Lift Research Articles

Endoscopic Periosteal Brow Lift: Evaluation and Follow-Up of Eyebrow Height

Endoscopic brow lift has become widely accepted as a method for rejuvenation of the upper third of the face, mainly to achieve eyebrow elevation. In this study, the authors quantified eyebrow elevation after videoendoscopic subperiosteal technique and followed up the heights of the eyebrows at different postoperative intervals. Seventy-two patients were submitted to endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift, and photographic evaluation was performed preoperatively and at different intervals postoperatively. From an interpupillary line, three different measurements on each side were obtained up to the superior border of both eyebrows. The distance between the medial eyebrows was also measured. Results were analyzed statistically by using the t test. Comparing preoperative values and those obtained at 5 months postoperatively, significant augmentation in medial, central, and lateral height of both eyebrows was noted (p < 0.05). Analyzing a group of 38 patients with mean postoperative times of 8.5 and 3.5 months, it was noted that there is spontaneous and significant augmentation in the medial height of both eyebrows (p < 0.05). A third group (24 patients) was analyzed at mean postoperative times of 3.5 and 24 months. The later follow-up showed continuous and significant elevation of the medial, central, and lateral height of both eyebrows (p < 0.05). The distance between medial eyebrows did not show any statistical difference. Subperiosteal endoscopic brow lift showed clinical and statistical effectiveness in correcting eyebrow ptosis, promoting also a spontaneous and progressive elevation of eyebrows, without enlarging the interbrow distance.

In Vitro Characteristics of a Bioabsorbable Suspension Screw and Suture System for Endoscopic Brow Lift Surgery

The time requirement for endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift fixation is as little as 10-14 days. Many types of bioabsorbable fixation have been applied to this procedure, including bioabsorbable suture coupled with a bioabsorbable bone anchor, with excellent outcomes. Typically, the anchor and suture materials differ, each having their own hydrolytic strength loss profile. The dynamic relationship between the instantaneous state of degradation of the bone anchor and the suture components can affect fixation strength and failure mode, a poorly understood phenomenon. We examined the use of 2x5 mm PLLA-PGA (82:18) copolymer screws containing a suture eyelet in the head, paired with one of four types of bioabsorbable suture (2-0 and 3-0 Vicryl and 2-0 and 3-0 PDS-II), in a model system designed to mimic brow lift fixation. Constructs were inserted into a synthetic bone substrate and incubated in pH 7.4 buffer at 37 degrees C for up to 3 weeks, then loaded to failure. Initial failure loads were dependent upon suture size but not suture material, with 2-0 suture constructs (63-70N) failing at twice the load of the 3-0 suture constructs (30-35N). The following 3 week strength retentions were obtained: 40-55% for 2-0 and 3-0 Vicryl suture, 100% for 3-0 PDS-II suture, and 58% for 2-0 PDS-II suture constructs. The predominant failure mode was suture breakage at the knot, with the later intervals utilizing 2-0 PDS-II suture including some screw head failures. This suspension screw, when coupled with an appropriate suture, appears to have suitable mechanical properties for endoscopic brow lift fixation.

Subperiosteal Brow Lifts without Fixation

Most surgeons today advocate an endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift for surgical correction of the upper third of the face. At the author's clinic, this operation has been performed since 1994 and the subgaleal bicoronal brow lift is no longer used. In earlier investigations, the author showed that the subperiosteal approach (n = 60) gives a better result than the subgaleal method (n = 60) when compared 1 year after surgery. In the literature, however, there are no published data regarding the long-term results of subperiosteal brow lifts. The author took material from his earlier investigations and looked at the same patients 5 years postoperatively. He compared the subperiosteal approach (n = 30) with the subgaleal brow lift (n = 15) and found that after 5 years the brows of the subgaleal patients were on the same level as they were before surgery, but in the group of subperiosteal brow lifts, almost all of the brows were higher 5 years after surgery than they were 1 year after surgery, with a mean increase in height of 2.5 mm. These findings led the author to the question whether scalp fixation was necessary at all when performing a subperiosteal brow lift. He performed 20 subperiosteal endoscopic brow lifts where scalp fixation was not used at all, relying only on changing the balance of muscle vectors around the eyebrows. Using a computerized instrument, measurements were made of the distance between the medial canthus and the top of the eyebrow, the midpupil and the top of the eyebrow, and the lateral canthus and the top of the eyebrow. All patients were measured before and 1 year after surgery. The author found an increase of the vertical height from the midpupil to the top of the brow, with an average increase of 3.9 mm. There were no differences between patients who had only a brow lift and those who had a brow lift and an upper blepharoplasty at the same time. The author concludes that for most cases where an increased vertical height of the brows of more than 4 mm is not needed, it is not necessary to use scalp fixation to achieve a natural result.

The temporal sequence of periosteal attachment after elevation.

This study investigated the adherence of periosteum to bone after elevation to document the temporal sequence of healing at the periosteal/bone interface. There has been a lack of consensus among surgeons as to the time required for healing at this interface; some believe that the healing achieves significant strength in a few days, whereas others believe that the periosteum does not adhere to the bone for many weeks. The aim of this study was to document the time course for healing, completeness of the reattachment, and structural characteristics of the union of bone and periosteum. To test the hypothesis, scalp flaps were elevated in a subperiosteal plane and were reattached in 40 adult guinea pigs and controls. The individual groups were studied at 3, 6, 12, 30, and 90 days postoperatively. Postmortem study consisted of analysis of the mechanical and histologic findings. Strength of adherence was documented by measuring the force required for reverse avulsion of the flaps with an Instron Mini 44 tensiometer. The specimens were also submitted for electron microscopic examination. The mean tension recorded in the plateau phase of avulsion of the flaps was as follows: controls, 78 g; experimental at 3 and 6 days, not applicable (weak adherence not permitting exposure for reverse avulsion); 12 days, 39 g (p = 0.0001); 30 days, 58 g (p = 0.0012), and 90 days, 63 g (p = 0.0229). There was a significant difference between all groups and the controls. Electron microscopic study showed collagen deposition at the bone periosteal interface, which became progressively more organized in the groups studied at 30 and 90 days, with decreasing amounts of inflammation and inflammatory cells. This study demonstrated that healing at the bone/periosteal interface progresses at a rate consistent with healing of most other wounds, dispelling many widespread beliefs that the adherence at this interface was accelerated. The temporal sequence of healing at the periosteal bone interface should be considered in the various procedures in which periosteal flaps are elevated. For example, there is clinical relevance in subperiosteal brow lift procedures, in which the periosteum should be reattached by a fixation technique that will remain stable for a minimum of 30 days to allow adequate adherence between the bone and periosteum at the postoperative elevated brow position.

A Comparison between Subgaleal and Subperiosteal Brow Lifts

The author has thought for a long time that the endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift has a better long-term result than the bicoronal subgaleal brow lift; therefore, he stopped doing subgaleal bicoronal brow lifts in 1995 in favor of the endoscopic subperiosteal approach. To discover if this impression could be objectively verified, the author undertook a retrospective study of 120 patients who had a brow lift. They were divided into four groups, depending on the type of operation, and were compared with each other by means of a new digitalized analyzing tool. Measurements of the vertical height from the midpupil to the top of the brow, from the medial canthus to the top of the brow, and from the lateral canthus to the top of the brow were made. Preoperative measurements were compared with postoperative measurements taken after 1 year. No significant difference existed between the preoperative and postoperative values in the patients who had a subgaleal brow lift. In the patients who had a subperiosteal brow lift, there was a mean increase of 7 mm in the vertical height of the brow 1 year after the operation.

A Comparison between Subgaleal and Subperiosteal Brow Lifts

The author has thought for a long time that the endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift has a better long-term result than the bicoronal subgaleal brow lift; therefore, he stopped doing subgaleal bicoronal brow lifts in 1995 in favor of the endoscopic subperiosteal approach. To discover if this impression could be objectively verified, the author undertook a retrospective study of 120 patients who had a brow lift. They were divided into four groups, depending on the type of operation, and were compared with each other by means of a new digitalized analyzing tool. Measurements of the vertical height from the midpupil to the top of the brow, from the medial canthus to the top of the brow, and from the lateral canthus to the top of the brow were made. Preoperative measurements were compared with postoperative measurements taken after 1 year. No significant difference existed between the preoperative and postoperative values in the patients who had a subgaleal brow lift. In the patients who had a subperiosteal brow lift, there was a mean increase of 7 mm in the vertical height of the brow 1 year after the operation.

A Comparison between Subgaleal and Subperiosteal Brow Lifts

The author has thought for a long time that the endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift has a better long-term result than the bicoronal subgaleal brow lift; therefore, he stopped doing subgaleal bicoronal brow lifts in 1995 in favor of the endoscopic subperiosteal approach. To discover if this impression could be objectively verified, the author undertook a retrospective study of 120 patients who had a brow lift. They were divided into four groups, depending on the type of operation, and were compared with each other by means of a new digitalized analyzing tool. Measurements of the vertical height from the mid-pupil to the top of the brow, from the medial canthus to the top of the brow, and from the lateral canthus to the top of the brow were made. Preoperative measurements were compared with postoperative measurements taken after 1 year. No significant difference existed between the preoperative and postoperative values in the patients who had a subgaleal brow lift. In the patients who had a subperiosteal brow lift, there was a mean increase of 7 mm in the vertical height of the brow 1 year after the operation.

A Comparison between Subgaleal and Subperiosteal Brow Lifts

The author has thought for a long time that the endoscopic subperiosteal brow lift has a better long-term result than the bicoronal subgaleal brow lift; therefore, he stopped doing subgaleal bicoronal brow lifts in 1995 in favor of the endoscopic subperiosteal approach. To discover if this impression could be objectively verified, the author undertook a retrospective study of 120 patients who had a brow lift. They were divided into four groups, depending on the type of operation, and were compared with each other by means of a new digitalized analyzing tool. Measurements of the vertical height from the mid-pupil to the top of the brow, from the medial canthus to the top of the brow, and from the lateral canthus to the top of the brow were made. Preoperative measurements were compared with postoperative measurements taken after 1 year. No significant difference existed between the preoperative and postoperative values in the patients who had a subgaleal brow lift. In the patients who had a subperiosteal brow lift, there was a mean increase of 7 mm in the vertical height of the brow 1 year after the operation.

Endoscopic Subperiosteal Browlift and Facelift

The subperiosteal facelift is an excellent technique for remodeling particularly the central third of the face. The endoscope has allowed us to perform rejuvenation of the upper face or the total face without incisional scars. On the other hand, the introduction of the endoscopic techniques to the biplanar surgery allowed us to perform the deep dissection with more safety and accuracy and to eliminate or decrease some of the undesirable sequelae of the traditional approaches such as the numbness on the forehead beyond the hairline or scalp incisions. In the lower face, the endoscopic techniques allowed us to protect the marginal mandibular branch of the facial nerve, and, on the neck, these techniques allowed us to perform a very accurate subplatysma dissection. The endoscope has allowed us to create a new technique for facial rejuvenation that can be equal to and perhaps in some cases even more versatile than other traditional, nonendoscopic approaches. In this way, we can tailor the operative procedure to the patient's needs rather than to give one type of operation to every patient that walks in for an office consultation. It will become imperative to outline the indications, contraindications, and limitations of each variation and to determine the appropriate role of the endoscope in facial rejuvenation. Only then will we better serve our colleagues and our patients.

Subperiosteal brow and midface lifts.

The subperiosteal browlift and midface lift combination is a total mobilization of the composite full-thickness soft tissues from the bony skeleton with superior suspension. The object is to correct midfacial ptosis and the "tired" look of the lateral eyelids. It is done in conjunction with a browlift so that a composite correction of the upper and midface is achieved. When indicated, a modified lower cheeklift and the usual procedures for correcting neck deformities are utilized in combination. We believe the procedure is safe and the results reported are natural and long-lasting. This review of 130 cases also stresses technical aspects and the safety of the procedure.