Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Optimizing Aesthetic Facial Surgery Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Treatments: Guidelines for Perioperative Management

Shridharani SM., Palm MD., Jarmuz T., Somenek M., Nayak LM., Saadat D.

Narrative Review on Face & Skin, published in Aesthet Surg J Open Forum (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Aesthet Surg J Open Forum (2025)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
40852439
PMCID
PMC12368962
DOI
10.1093/asjof/ojaf087
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

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 outcome

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research