| FACIAL REJUVENATION | ARTICLE The laser was set at 8 W and 924 nm, and at 4 W and
975 nm. The total power administered was between 1 kJ and 1.8 kJ. The aspirate was 2–5 cc in all cases.
Results Greater definition of the cheekbone and mandibular line is observed almost immediately. The procedure results in a smoother nasolabial fold, improved submalar triangle with improved luminosity in the cheekbone, and smooth degradation of the area between the lower eyelid and the malar fat pad. In the lower third, the cheek appears hollowed, the jowl diminishes, and the marionette line is shorter and smoother, leaving the lower profile of the mandible rejuvenated. Skin contraction is very prominent in this area (Table 2). The results, which may be very discreet or very good,
depend on the expertise of the practitioner to a great extent, as the procedure has a steep learning curve1,3,6
.
Early in the authorsÕ experience, only very discreet changes were achieved (Figure 2). All 124 patients completed the 3-month follow-up.
Eleven underwent a touch-up procedure (of the same treatment) to improve the result or correct asymmetries.
Efficacy The WSRS showed grade 1–2 improvements in all cases, with no significant differences between the investigator and the observer 3 months after treatment (Table 3 and Figure 3). Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the investigator or the observer in the GAIS (Table 4 and Figure 4) ® most of the patients achieved a moderate or marked improvement. The majority of patients felt that their appearance had improved 3 months after treatment (satisfaction index
The results, which may be very discreet or very good,
depend on the expertise of the practitioner to a great extent, as the procedure has a steep learning curve.
Table 4 Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale after 3 months: investigator versus observer
GAIS after 3-month follow-up
Very much improved Much improved Moderate No change Worse
GAIS=Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale
Investigator (%) 2
40 56 2
0 100
Observer (%) 0
36
59.8 4.2 0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
GAIS after 3 months Investigator % Observer %
Very much improved
Figure 4 No significant differences were noted between the assessments of the investigator and the observer (P=0.768). Most patients had moderate to marked improvements (GAIS=Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale)
improved Much
Moderate No change Worse
Figure 5 59-year-old female patient before (A) and after (B) treatment
prime-journal.com | April/May 2012
❚
27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84