ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Optimizing Aesthetic Facial Surgery Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Treatments: Guidelines for Perioperative Management.
Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-ablative dermis layer targeted dielectric heating for facial rhytid improvement in Asian skin.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Advanced on Minimally Invasive Techniques in Facial Rejuvenation: A Comprehensive Review.World journal of plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Longevity Aesthetics: A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Pro-Aging Medicine Into Surgical and Nonsurgical Practice.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Comparison between open and closed reduction techniques for mandibular fractures: A systematic review.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rise in minimally invasive treatments (MITs) in aesthetic medicine has introduced new complexities for subsequent facial surgeries such as facelifts. Despite their popularity, there are limited data on how these treatments impact surgical outcomes. Objectives: The authors of this paper explore the impact of MIT modalities on subsequent facial surgeries and provide guidelines for perioperative planning and management to optimize outcomes for patients with a history of MITs. Methods: An expert panel of 7 plastic surgeons and 1 dermatologist conducted a comprehensive review of existing literature, combined with author surveys and case-based discussions, to develop perioperative recommendations for patients with previous MITs. Consensus was reached for each recommendation with a ≥75% agreement threshold. Results: The authors of this paper present recommendations for perioperative planning, surgical techniques, and postoperative care for patients with previous MITs. Complication risks were found to vary by MIT modality: biostimulatory injectables, temporary fillers, and superficial energy-based devices (EBDs) generally present lower risks, whereas permanent fillers, deeply delivered EBDs, and recently placed temporary fillers or threads were associated with increased risks. The recommendations highlight strategies to support both aesthetic and functional surgical outcomes. Conclusions: Patients with previous MITs can be candidates for facelift surgery if perioperative strategies are followed to mitigate risks associated with plane distortion and vascular compromise. These guidelines provide a framework to support aesthetic providers in enhancing surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Given the limited literature on MIT-related surgical implications, the authors emphasize individualized approaches to mitigate risks associated with previous MITs until further research is available. Level of Evidence 5 Therapeutic:
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.