Rejuvenation surgery of the upper one-third of the face can be accomplished by a number of well-known techniques and approaches. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine if endoscopic-assisted forehead lifts achieve the same degree of correction as the coronal/pretrichial forehead lifts, (2) to assess the effect of concurrent blepharoplasty on brow elevation, and (3) to evaluate long-term results of coronal/ pretrichial forehead lifts. The study was a retrospective blinded comparison of pre- and postoperative photographs of patients who underwent forehead lifts. In order to control for the differences in photographs, ratios of distances were measured utilizing standard anthropometric sites of the brow, medial canthus, and subnasale. All reviewed cases were operated on by the same surgeon (S.W. Perkins, M.D.). A total of 140 patients having undergone forehead lift procedures and with 12-month postoperative photographic documentation were included in the study. Of these 121 patients had coronal forehead lifts and 19 had endoscopic-assisted forehead lifts. Results revealed that at 1 year follow-up both methods achieved brow elevation without a significant difference in the approach. Concomitant blepharoplasty had no statistical effect on brow position. Additionally, long-term follow-up on the coronal/pretrichial lifts revealed a gradual drop in brow position over 5 years. We conclude that both endoscopic and coronal/pretrichial forehead lifts provide for comparable elevation at 1-year follow-up. Concomitant blepharoplasty has minimal to no significant effect on brow position. Brow elevation in coronal/pretrichial forehead lifts may be temporary.

No one test possesses all the qualities necessary to be the ideal clinical test for the detection of carpal tunnel syndrome.

Skin-sparing operations should be the initial procedure chosen for most grade III gynecomastia patients.

No abstract

The gold standard for intraoperative evaluation of lower-extremity bypass grafts has been angiography. Limitations of this technique include inability to measure flow dynamics, violation of graft integrity, cost, and length of assessment time. The goal of this study was to evaluate duplex scanning as an alternative modality for intraoperative graft assessment. Our study group comprised of 19 consecutive patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass procedures at our institution between March 1999 and March 2000. Intraoperative angiography was compared with duplex scanning by evaluating parameters of assessment time, graft flow velocities, serum creatinine levels, and 30-day graft patency rates. Mean study times were the following: cut-film angiography, 22 ± 1.8 minutes; real-time fluoroscopy, 17 ± 2.5 minutes; and duplex imaging, 10.4 ± 1.1 minutes. As noted duplex imaging times as compared with radiographic modalities were significantly shorter ( P < 0.05). There was a substantial cost difference between angiography ($650) and duplex scanning ($350). A100 per cent correlation of study findings was noted between angiography and duplex scanning. No significant change in pre- versus postoperative creatinine levels was found. We conclude that duplex scanning is an effective modality and provides reliable intraoperative vascular graft assessment data in a community hospital setting. Advantages include a shorter study time, lower cost, flow dynamic data acquisition, and avoidance of mechanical graft trauma.