Does Prior Treatment With Facial Injectables Increase the Risk of Rhytidectomy Complications?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether facial injectable treatments before rhytidectomy increase the risk of surgical complications, and data on the safety of rhytidectomy after prior injectable (PI) treatments are essential for clinicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine whether facial injectable treatments increase complications from rhytidectomy surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who had a deep-plane rhytidectomy over a 15-month period. The authors recorded PIs comprising HA, calcium hydroxylapatite, and/or poly- l -lactic acid, or no prior injectables (NPI) to determine whether patients with prior facial injectables were at increased risk of complications after rhytidectomy. RESULTS: More than half of patients (57%) had received injectable treatments before surgery. Twenty five patients (24%) had complication after rhytidectomy. Of these, 17 had PI and 8 had NPI. The rate of complications among all PI patients was 17/106 (16%), and the rate of complications among all NPI patients was 8/106 (8%), which is not statistically significant p = .188. CONCLUSION: Their study demonstrates no significant increased risk of complications after rhytidectomy in patients with a history of facial injectable procedures. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study documenting the safety of rhytidectomy after PI procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".