Alloplastic Facial Implants: a Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis on Outcomes and Uses in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Aesth Plast Surg (2019) 43:625–636 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01370-0 SYSTEMIC REVIEW FACIAL SURGERY Alloplastic Facial Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis on Outcomes and Uses in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Plastic Surgery 1 2 1 5 Jeremie D. Oliver • Annica C. Eells • Elias S. Saba • Daniel Boczar • 5 5 5 3 David J. Restrepo • Maria T. Huayllani • Andrea Sisti • Michael S. Hu • 4 5 Daniel J. Gould • Antonio Jorge Forte Received: 1 February 2019 / Accepted: 24 March 2019 / Published online: 1 April 2019 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2019 Abstract Results A total of 17 studies (n = 2100 patients, follow-up Background Alloplastic materials in facial surgery have range = 1 month–27 years) were included. Overall, mer- been used successfully for various applications in the silene mesh implants were associated with the highest risk reconstructive restoration or aesthetic augmentation of the of infection (3.38%). Methyl methacrylate implants were facial skeleton. The objective of this study was to conduct a associated with the highest rate of hematoma (5.98%). comprehensive systematic review of alloplastic implant Implants placed in the malar region (2.67%) and frontal materials utilized to augment the facial skeleton stratified bones (2.50%) were associated with the highest rates of by anatomical distribution, indication, specific material infection. Implants placed in the periorbital region were used, and respective outcomes. associated with the highest rate of inflammation (8.0%), Methods A comprehensive systematic review on alloplas- explantation (8.0%), and poor cosmetic outcome (17.0%). tic facial implant data was conducted utilizing Medline/ Porous implants were shown to be more likely to potentiate PubMed database. Articles were stratified by (1) anatomic infection than non-porous implant types. localization in the face, as well as (2) alloplastic material. Conclusions Alloplastic facial implants are a reliable means of restoring facial symmetry and achieving facial skeletal augmentation with a relatively low complication profile. It is important for plastic surgeons to understand the relative This study was supported in part by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and risks for each type of implant to develop postoperative Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. complications or poor long-term cosmetic results. Interest- Electronic supplementary material The online version of this ingly, porous implants were shown to be more likely to article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01370-0) contains sup- potentiate infection than non-porous implant types. plementary material, which is available to authorized users. Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors & Jeremie D. Oliver assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full [email protected] description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 1 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st Street Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266. SW, Rochester, MN, USA 2 Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Keywords Face Alloplast Implant Aesthetic AZ, USA Á Á Á Á Reconstructive Á Augmentation Á Outcomes Á Review 3 Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 4 Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Introduction Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA Facial implants are used in a variety of applications 5 Division of Plastic Surgery and Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo including post-traumatic reconstruction, correction of Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA congenital abnormalities, and aesthetic augmentation or 123 626 Aesth Plast Surg (2019) 43:625–636 enhancement [1]. Commonly augmented facial sites Disagreements in regard to article identification and final include the nasal dorsum, malar eminence, and chin, in selection for inclusion in this pooled analysis of the liter- diverse applications that include rhinoplasty, orbital floor ature were resolved by the senior author. The following reconstruction, and augmentation of the facial skeleton [2]. were used as either keywords or Medical Subject Headings While facial skeletal augmentation was traditionally (MeSH) in all combinations in the search strategy: [(allo- achieved by utilizing autogenous bone grafts, advance- plastic) AND face] and [(implant) AND (alloplastic) AND ments in materials engineering have allowed for the face]. The compiled reference lists were compared and development of alloplastic materials better suited for cer- reviewed for potential relevance. The bibliographies of tain surgical applications. These alloplastic facial implants included studies were also searched for articles not offer a variety of advantages, including increased implant acquired through initial search queries. After all authors availability and the avoidance of donor-site morbidities had completed systematic literature review, additional seen with autogenous bone grafts such as scar alopecia and verification utilizing a medical librarian trained in sys- graft resorption [3]. The use of alloplastic facial implants tematic reviews was requested and received to ensure the may also offer the surgeon a number of advantages by most comprehensive review of all published studies avoiding difficulties in graft shaping that may result in meeting these criteria was performed. This study complied increased surgical time and complexity [1]. with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Despite these advantages, alloplastic facial implants are Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses not without their problems. Though a variety of implant (PRISMA). See Fig. 1 (flow chart). material types exist, the ideal implant should possess a balance between structural integrity and pliability, and Selection Criteria should be bioinert, to avoid inflammation [1, 2]. The absence of any one of these characteristics may result in Eligibility criteria included the following: clinical out- complications which include postoperative infection or comes studies reporting data from alloplastic materials inflammation, graft explantation or migration, local with anatomic localization in the face, including the hematoma or wound dehiscence, and ultimately poor cos- zygoma, nose, mandible, orbit, frontal bone, maxilla, and metic outcome. For example, implants made of porous glabella, for either reconstructive or aesthetic indications. materials such as porous high-density polyethylene Abstracts, presentations, non-English language papers, (pHDPE) allow for the promotion of tissue ingrowth, but animal studies, non-clinical studies, ex vivo studies, may also allow a site for bacteria to evade the host immune surveillance [2, 4]. Alternatively, uniformly solid implants that do not promote tissue growth may result in fibrotic encapsulation or migration of the implant [1]. For this reason, certain types of facial implants may be better suited based on procedure or anatomical site. Though complications associated with alloplastic implants are well documented, studies have shown dis- crepancy regarding the rate of complications associated with certain implants [5–8]. A comprehensive analysis of facial implant complication rates and how they affect aesthetic outcome is essential. In this study, the authors conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of pooled data of alloplastic implant materials utilized to augment the facial skeleton stratified by anatomical distribution, indi- cation, specific material used, and respective outcomes. Methods Search Strategy Two authors (first author and second author) independently conducted the electronic searches using Ovid Medline/ Fig. 1 Flowchart depicting selection criteria and article identification PubMed database without timeframe limitations. stages 123 Aesth Plast Surg (2019) 43:625–636 627 reviews, meta-analyses, and single case reports were implants (1.08%), one of the less commonly reported excluded. complications overall. Implants placed in the frontal bone region reported a 6% (n = 32) likelihood of hematoma Data Extraction and Processing postoperatively. Wound dehiscence most often occurred with nasal implants (0.63%). The anatomic locations with The extracted data included demographics, such as year of the highest rates of poor aesthetic outcomes were orbital study, study design, country, follow-up duration, anatom- (17%), frontal (5.2%), and nasal (4.5%) (Table 3). Inter- ical localization of alloplastic material, and surgical com- estingly, porous implants were shown to be more likely to plications (including infection, inflammation, graft potentiate infection than non-porous implant types. migration, need for explantation, hematoma, wound For completion, Supplemental Table 4 includes a listing dehiscence, and cosmetic outcome). Data extraction from of data collected from all case reports identified in the articles, tables, and figures was performed by one reviewer literature [26–38] as well as other case series that did not (second author) with accuracy of data entry confirmed by meet study inclusion criteria reporting outcomes in allo- an additional reviewer (first author). plastic facial implants, although we did not include these in Analysis was designed to compare outcomes between our pooled data analysis. (1) each alloplastic material studied and (2) different