Endoscopic forehead lifting.

Thomas Romo; Haresh Yalamanchili

doi:10.1016/j.det.2005.03.004

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16039426

Endoscopic forehead lifting.

Thomas Romo·Haresh Yalamanchili

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The aging process of the face is often most drastic in the upper third of the face, with the development of forehead rhytides and brow prolapse. Traditionally, an open approach to addressing aging of the forehead has been used. The introduction of endoscopic technology to surgical correction of forehead aging has resulted in comparable results without the significant disadvantages inherent in the open approach. The success of the endoscopic technique for forehead lifting has been reflected by its immense popularity and demand by the public. The aging process, relevant surgical anatomy, patient selection and planning, surgical technique, and current controversies in fixation are reviewed.

Explore related subjects

Endoscopy Facial Muscles Forehead Humans Plastic Surgery Procedures Skin Aging Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Thomas Romo, Haresh Yalamanchili. 2005. Endoscopic forehead lifting.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.det.2005.03.004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatecomy.

INTRODUCTION: In the present study, we review current literature and based on our experience, we present the anatomical landmarks of open and laparoscopic/endoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: A thorough literature search was performed with the Medline database on the anatomy and the nomenclature of the structures surrounding the prostate gland. The correct handling of puboprostatic ligaments, external urethral sphincter, prostatic fascias and neurovascular bundle is necessary for avoiding malfunction of the urogenital system after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: When evaluating new prostatectomy techniques, we should always take into account both clinical and final oncological outcomes. The present review adds further knowledge to the existing "postprostatectomy anatomical hazard" debate. It emphasizes upon the role of the puboprostatic ligaments and the course of the external urethral sphincter for urinary continence. When performing an intrafascial nerve sparing prostatectomy most urologists tend to approach as close to the prostatic capsula as possible, even though there is no concurrence regarding the nomenclature of the surrounding fascias and the course of the actual neurovascular bundles. After completion of an intrafascial technique the specimen does not contain any periprostatic tissue and thus the detection of pT3a disease is not feasible. This especially becomes problematic if the tumour reaches the resection margin. DISCUSSION: Nerve sparing open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy should aim in maintaining sexual function, recuperating early continence after surgery, without hindering the final oncological outcome to the procedure. Despite the different approaches for radical prostatectomy the key for better results is the understanding of the anatomy of the bladder neck and the urethra.

Endoscopy↗

PubMed2006

Complications of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): prevention and management.

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) is a further advancement of minimal invasive surgery as it overcomes the limitations of laparoscopic (transperitoneal) RPE by the strictly extraperitoneal route of access combining the advantages of minimal invasive surgery with the advantages of an extraperitoneal procedure. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy has many advantages but is not without complications. The aim of this review article is to describe the most common complications of this procedure. Complications associated with endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy are: vascular injury--bleeding--haematoma, bowel injury, lymphocele, injury to the bladder--ureter, port site hernia, anastomotic leakage--stricture, obturator nerve injury--paralysis, gas embolism, catheter blockage, and miscellaneous like perineal pain, pubic osteitis, infection- urosepsis. The present review paper focuses on the identification and management of these complications The incidence of most complications directly correlates with the surgeons' experience, and the various complications are related to technical errors rather than to the technique itself. The laparoscopist performing endoscopic/ laparoscopic radical prostatectomy should be aware of all these complications. He should be able to recognise promptly, treat efficiently, and ideally prevent these complications.

Endoscopy↗

PubMed2006

Portosystemic shunts versus endoscopic therapy for variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised clinical trials have compared portosystemic shunting procedures with endoscopic therapy for variceal haemorrhage, but there is no consensus as to which approach is preferable. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of shunts (total surgical shunt (TS); distal spleno-renal shunts (DSRS) or transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunts (TIPS) with endoscopic therapy (ET, sclerotherapy and/or banding) for prevention of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, and the references of identified trials were searched (last search February 2004). Researchers in the field and in industry were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing TS, DSRS or TIPS with ET in patients who had recovered from a variceal haemorrhage and were known to be cirrhotic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected to allow intention-to-treat analysis where possible. For each outcome, a pooled estimate of treatment effect (log hazard ratio for time to outcome, Peto odds ratio for binary outcomes, and differences in means for continuous outcomes) across trials was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two trials evaluating 1409 patients were included. All trials had problems of method. Shunt therapy compared with ET demonstrated significantly less rebleeding (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.30) at the cost of significantly increased acute hepatic encephalopathy (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.69) and chronic encephalopathy (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.62). There were no significant differences regarding mortality (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21) and duration of in-patient stay (weighed mean difference 0.78 day, 95% CI -1.48 to 3.05). The proportion of patients with shunt occlusion or dysfunction was 3.1% (95% CI 0.4 to 10.7%) following TS (two trials), 7.8% (95% CI 3.8 to 13.9%) following DSRS (four trials), and 59% (range 18% to 72%) following TIPS (14 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All shunts resulted in a significantly lower rebleeding rate at the expense of a higher incidence of encephalopathy. TIPS was complicated by a high incidence of shunt dysfunction. No survival advantage was demonstrated with any shunt.

Endoscopy↗