PDF herunterladen
Semin Plast Surg 2024; 38(04): 260-263
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1793917
Review Article

Judging Surgical Quality in Facial Reconstruction

Lauren McAllister
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Nicholas Yim
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
James F. Thornton
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
› Institutsangaben
Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Judging surgical quality within facial reconstruction is challenging for many reasons. Factors beyond the completion of surgery influence the quality of the result, demanding the surgeon to predict and mitigate potential confounders of quality. This skill is honed over years of experience and practice. Patient satisfaction, risk profile, and the ideals within the field are central to understanding the quality of the outcome.

Keywords

surgical quality - facial reconstruction - 10,000-hour rule - function - symmetry


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
17. Dezember 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kirkman MA. Deliberate practice, domain-specific expertise, and implications for surgical education in current climes. J Surg Educ 2013; 70 (03) 309-317
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Gladwell M. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co; 2008
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kluska MS. Cosmetic surgery of the breast: “art, science & safety.”. In: Thomas M, D'silva J. eds. Manual of Cosmetic Medicine and Surgery. Vol. 2. Breast Reshaping. Singapore: Springer; 2023: 3-13
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Reider B. Too much? Too soon?. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (06) 1249-1251
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ericsson KA. The acquisition of expert performance: an introduction to some of the issues. In: Ericsson KA. ed. The Road to Excellence. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2014: 127-165
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Aly A, Tolazzi A, Soliman S, Cram A. Quantitative analysis of aesthetic results: introducing a new paradigm. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32 (01) 120-124
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Harun NA, Adam KBC, Abdullah NA, Rusli N. Is a symmetrical face really attractive?. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023; 52 (06) 703-709
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Losquadro WD, Bared A, Toriumi DM. Correction of the retracted alar base. Facial Plast Surg 2012; 28 (02) 218-224
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Millard DR. Principle 8. In: Principalization of Plastic Surgery. Boston, MA: Little Brown, & Co; 1986: 78-112
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gorney M, Harries T. The preoperative and postoperative consideration of natural facial asymmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg 1974; 54 (02) 187-191
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Donabedian A, Wheeler JR, Wyszewianski L. Quality, cost, and health: an integrative model. Med Care 1982; 20 (10) 975-992
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020; 44 (04) 1210-1215
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 2010; 26 (04) 303-309
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ottenhof MJ, Veldhuizen IJ, Hensbergen LJV. et al. The use of the FACE-Q aesthetic: a narrative review. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022; 46 (06) 2769-2780
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 McAllister L, Thornton JF. Facial reconstruction: the nuances of managing undesirable results. Semin Plast Surg 2024; 38 (04) 335-340
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar