You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 5 No. 4, Jul-Aug 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Article
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Dentistry/ Oral Medicine
 •Biomaterials and Implants
 •Cosmetic Surgery/ Procedures
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Patient Satisfaction With Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene (Softform) Implants to the Perioral Region

Stephen J. Wall, MD, PhD; Peter A. Adamson, MD, FRCSC; Denis Bailey, MD, FRCP; A. W. Peter van Nostrand, MD, FRCPC

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2003;5:320-324.

Objective  To assess clinical results in patients undergoing implantation of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Softform) for perioral enhancement (melolabial fold, melomental fold, upper lip, and lower lip).

Design  Fifty patients had undergone Softform implantation by a single surgeon. A retrospective telephone survey (25 questions) was conducted. Of 50 patients, 38 (76%) were contacted. The mean interval between the procedure and survey was 22.7 months (range, 2-40 months). Responses were submitted for statistical analysis. A pathological review was performed on specimens removed from 2 patients.

Results  Two patients (4%) developed postoperative infections that resolved with use of oral antibiotics; 5 patients (10%) requested repositioning owing to dissatisfaction with placement; and 5 patients (10%) requested implant removal. Composite scores indicated that patients were "slightly" satisfied with the procedure outcome. Of the 38 patients contacted, 24 (63%) would undergo additional implants and 20 (53%) would recommend the procedure to others. Results were not significantly influenced by site, size, or history of prior augmentation procedures. Histologic review indicated that implants elicit a chronic inflammatory reaction and that blood vessels infiltrate the porous walls of the implant.

Conclusion  With proper patient selection, Softform represents a potential option for those individuals considering perioral enhancement.


From Capital Cosmetic Surgery, Washington, DC (Dr Wall); the Department of Otolaryngology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario (Drs Wall and Adamson); Adamson Cosmetic Facial Surgery, Toronto (Dr Adamson); and the Department of Pathology, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto (Drs Bailey and van Nostrand) The authors do not have any commercial or proprietary interest in the Softform product or in its manufacturer.



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Lip Augmentation With Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa
Seymour et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2008;10:30-33.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of radiesse in combination with restylane for facial augmentation.
Godin et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006;8:92-97.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of the Radiance FN Soft Tissue Filler for Facial Soft Tissue Augmentation
Tzikas
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6:234-239.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.