Plastic Surgery New Jersey

This is a survey of paTients who underwent facial surgery (mental and malar augmentation) with silicone implants during a 10-year period, 1982-1992, by the senior author. Four hundred and eighty four patients were located by a record search. 'Me office has been computerized for only the past 2 years. A number of patients who had implants and were not sent the questionnaire were seen in the office during this time for various reasons. We, therefore, conclude that 484 represents a majority but not nearly the total number of patients who had facial implants in this period. Of the 484 questionnaires sent (Figure 2), we received 207 replies. Fifty-four questionnaires were returned because of unknown address. and the remainder of recipients failed to reply. Therefore, a total of 430 questionnaires were received by patients. The 207 replies represent a response rate of 48%, which is considered a very high statistical response rate.

All mentoplasties were performed through a submental incision. All malar implants were inserted through an intraoral sublabial approach. Patients were all placed on antibiotics (usually Keflex) for 7 days unless there was a significant history of antibiotic allergy. The implants were not soaked in antibiotic solution. Until 1987 we used a mixture of silicone rubber and gel-filled silicone implants. After 1987 all implants were silicone rubber. In 1988 we began using extended chin implants. which altered the technique of insertion, requiring greater lateral dissection. In 1990 we began suturing all chin implants in place. Cheek implants were divided between extended malar and submalar implants.

We personally reviewed all the charts and the pre- and postoperative photos to document surgeon satisfaction with the results. Extrapolating the data from the charts, we were able to fill out a surgeon's evaluation sheet on each patient.

<<previous page next page>>