The Evolution of Midface Rejuvenation

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the aesthetic results in our initial group of patients treated with a combination of a midface-lift and fat transfer compared with a randomly selected group of patients who underwent a midface-lift without concurrent fat transfer by one of us.

Methods:

The setting was a private, ambulatory, surgical center. The design was a comparative study between patients who did or did not receive fat transfer in addition to a midface-lift to determine if the addition of fat transfer to the midface-lift resulted in an improved aesthetic outcome. A total of 40 patients with complete photographic and medical records and a minimum of 6 months of follow-up were included in the study. Group 1 consisted of 30 patients randomly selected (from >650 potential patients) who underwent a midface-lift without fat transfer to serve as a control group. Group 2 consisted of our initial 10 patients who underwent fat transfer in addition to a midface-lift at the same setting. The degree of aesthetic improvement in 4 facial zones was assessed by 3 independent blinded evaluators. Zone 1 represents the tear trough/infraorbital rim; zone 2, the malar eminence; zone 3, the submalar region; and zone 4, the nasolabial crease. Each zone was given a rating from 0 to 2 (0 for no improvement; 1, mild improvement; and 2, marked improvement). The 2 groups were compared with 4 χ ² tests of independence.

Results:

Four χ ² tests of independence were conducted to compare the findings between group 1 and group 2. One hundred twenty ratings were conducted; group 1 consisted of 90 total ratings on 30 patients and group 2 consisted of 30 total ratings on 10 patients. The first χ ² (tear trough/infraorbital rim) test revealed a significant difference on tear trough ratings by group (χ ² ₂ = 73.59, P<.01). The second χ ² test (malar eminence) did not reveal a significant difference on malar eminence ratings by group (χ ² ₂ = 3.10, P = .21). The third χ ² test (submalar region) failed to reveal a significant difference on submalar region by group (χ ² ₂ = 4.01, P = .13). The final χ ² test (nasolabial crease) revealed a significant difference on nasolabial ratings by group (χ ² ₂ = 14.28, P<.01).

Conclusions:

Our findings revealed a statistically significant difference between group 1 (no fat transfer) and group 2 (fat transfer) in the tear trough region (P<.01) and the nasolabial crease (P<.01). The fat transfer technique in combination with a midface-lift is a safe and effective means to provide more complete facial rejuvenation, especially in the regions of the tear trough and nasolabial crease.