Biomedical subjects
Peter A Adamson
Publications and source records attributed to Peter A Adamson.
Augmentation, enhancement, and implantation procedures for the lips.
Individual features of the face combine to capture the idealized image of youth and sensuality. In Western cultures, well-contoured lips contribute to this standard and are considered desirable attributes. In contrast, thin or drawn lips project a picture of aging and a severe countenance. In recent years, an increasing number of interventions have been introduced that seek to enhance lip fullness and shape. This article reviews the options available for lip augmentation with a focus on injectable and implantable materials.
Revision rhinoplasty.
Revision rhinoplasty requires sound judgment by both patient and surgeon. Detailed preoperative assessment facilitates proper patient selection. If the patient is deemed a favorable revision rhinoplasty candidate, both patient and surgeon must agree on the goals for and risks inherent in revision rhinoplasty. Thoughtfulness regarding the degree of aesthetic and functional correction desired by the patient and the corresponding intraoperative techniques required to achieve this correction must be contemplated prior to committing to revision rhinoplasty. Furthermore, the surgeon must feel confident that the surgical demands requested by the patient may be met and satisfaction achieved. A precise preoperative surgical plan minimizes intraoperative misadventures. Options for grafting materials should be discussed and agreed upon by both patient and surgeon preoperatively. Both patient and surgeon commit to long-term postoperative follow-up and the patience necessary for the eventual outcome to be realized.
Patient satisfaction with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (Softform) implants to the perioral region.
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.