Author Topic: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?  (Read 28989 times)

hellohello

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Karma: 2
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2015, 11:29:32 PM »
Never heard of the lamellar split osteotomy, but you'd expect there must be a reason that it is not used a lot.

All in all there is a lot of discussion about the zygomatic osteotomy on the forum, but having read the forum: very few members seem to actually have gotten a zygomatic (sandwich) osteotomy. And the discussion in general seems to be 'I might get a zso too, to get high cheekbones like male models have', etc. I have written my thoughts about that, but I really feel these type of comments are open to a gross misrepresentation of what a zso can do.  The very few members that I did read that got a zygomatic sandwich osteotomy either were posting at 3-6 weeks post-op, when there is still heaps of diffuse swelling that augments the cheekbones.  Ncharm is actually one of the only/very few other members I have seen here that is longer out of surgery, and she has written too that she mostly got some projection at a lower level.
As to the result: I estimate there is 2 cm of flatness laterally from the canthus and underneath the canthus, then there is the step off (although not visible given the limited augmentation) and then you have the augmented area. And that is a minor part of the lower zygomatic arch, as mentioned: some fullness at the lower cheek. There is no tapering of course: the area above the fractured bone segment is flat, and then there is the step off to the area that is slightly augmented. And that slight augmentation comes from a small portion of your lower zygomatic bone that is pushed outwards.
 
I feel these zygomatic osteotomies are massive surgery with unimpressive results. You are not looking at a few weeks of swelling but months and months of diffuse swelling, mostly lingering around the cheeks. A girl that was worried about over-augmentation a few weeks after surgery when getting an osteotomy apparently was told by the surgeon that at 3 months there would only be a subtle change compared to her pre-surgery face. And although 3 months seems a bit optimistic, in general that is what I feel too: you will undergo massive surgery, have swelling for months (which is hard to distinguish from your own tissues once the very visible bulk of swelling is gone), and you end up with a minimal change. (And if you are out of luck and a bit older with less elastic tissues, you risk ending up with some soft tissue changes because of the continuous swelling and minimal change).

I expect this is different when the malars up until the inferior orbital rim are fractured, since obviously you will have a good amount of bone that is fractured and thus more augmentation. Moreover the upper part of the zygo bone gets augmented too this way, so it is expected the procedure might result in that high cheekbone. But I'm still not completely convinced of any zygomatic osteotomy, until I really see a good result first-hand a lot of time after the actual surgery. Concerning the Lefort III: I saw some very small pictures of that member Earl after he got a modified Lefort III and he did seem to have gotten good augmentation, high on the zygo bone, but I don't know how much swelling was still there. Still these surgeries that involve a bigger part of the zygo bone obviously yield more dramatic results.
I do really understand now why it is often de-recommended by surgeons to get a zygomatic (sandwich) osteotomy. I have read the comments that those surgeons that de-recommend to get zygo osteotomies can't perform an osteotomy, and that might be right. However I consulted with both craniofacial and craniofacial plastic surgeons, and I was warned to not get a zygomatic osteotomy. The long downtime was what I was warned for and the unimpressive results. These surgeons could perform both a zygomatic (sandwich) osteotomy and insert an implant, and had done a lot of both, and they picked the implant. The info I got was that they could not let a patient undergo such a massive operation with such a long downtime, swelling for up until a year until the final result is visible, and a mediocre result, when there is a procedure available that gives aesthetically better, more predictable results with far less downtime. Either way: many voices, many visions and I picked differently.

However I have my reservations.
The lefort's, bsso's, etc: these surgeries can bring about dramatic changes that are not comparable to most plastic surgery results. That I can see. The sliding genio can look nice. But some folks seem deadset on augmenting every part of their faces through osteotomies, convinced their own bone can be manipulated in such ways that with a simple 'cut and paste'-surgery involving the mandible or zygo's you can alter your own bone structure dramatically. Whereas in reality the surgeon has to work with your own bone with all its limitations, can only make limited cuts because of nerves and the surgery can give limited augmentation, existing assymetry will become more apparent most of the times, often bone needs to be grafted, there can be some bone resorption etc. And that aside you will be undergoing massive surgery with a long downtime, and it will take a long long time before you will see the results that are often not as dramatic as with implant surgery. I sometimes see suggested here to then get an osteotomy twice to get more augmentation similar to what an implant could give. Twice?  :-\ Make that three times if you need a revision of one of those two surgeries. I then read to get the jaw shaved in Asia since the chin wing procedure might give an U-shape to the mandible instead of the often more desirable V-shape. Overall all this just confirms that the results of these osteotomies (lefort's, bsso's etc aside, and I think the sliding genio can also yield nice results) are not as impressive as we'd want them to be, have a lot of limitations (after all: you can not really prevent getting a U-shaped mandible after a chin wing), and require further massive surgery if you'd want to get a more optimal result or a result as drastic as implant surgery might give.
And these are massive/drastic surgeries, with a long downtime (you might as well add all the travel costs/downtime in which you might not be able to work to the costs of surgery, not to mention missing out on socializing for a good while). Getting some cheek fillers gives a much more predictable result, and the downtime is zero.

Either way, if I see someone post pictures from zso's performed by Mommaerts in which the patients are 6 weeks out of surgery, I cringe. This is massive surgery and swelling is lingering all over the face for months and months. What you are looking at at 6 weeks is augmentation caused by swelling.

Breakingbad

  • Private
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 92
  • Karma: 3
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2015, 01:40:36 AM »
Hellohello:

I agree with your sentiments. People want "model cheekbones," "model jawlines," and so on, but things are not that simple in reality. I think if you were to take a 3d scan of the skull of an attractive person with these features, and a 3d scan of an unnatractive, or average person, and put them into a program that would overlay the two scans in order to compare ALL the differences, you'd see there are so many factors. Volume missing here, projection missing there, different curve, different angle, different relationship, and ALL OVER the face. There do seem to be, however, a few basic guidelines and the true game here is finding what procedures fit best to achieving something along those lines.

In regards to the zygomas and orbital rims, neither osteotomies, nor implants are ideal. With implants, shape is customizable, but implants can only be so thick, mostly not more than a few millimetres of projection. With osteotomies, I think the 'modified lefort iii' and other osteotomies which cut a larger section of the zygoma are potential options, but it isn't clear how much projection they can achieve. I actually have a bit of a theory (a very basic and simplistic one) about what makes the difference between improminent and 'model type' cheekbones. Basically, i think it's about forward frojection, lateral projection, and a 3rd thing, which is the squareness of the angle where the lateral and forward 'walls' of the zygoma meet. I'll post a small schematic soon to show what I mean.

One thing I didn't quite get from your post, though, is what you mean about chin-wing giving a U-shaped mandible. Can you elaborate on this?

PloskoPlus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3044
  • Karma: 140
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2015, 05:33:22 AM »
When it comes to mid face osteotomies, it's all about volume.  An LF1 for example maybe only a 3mm movement, but the volume involved is huge.  ZO - even if the movement is big, the bone involved is very small, so the volume involved is small as well.  Ditto for implants.  To have an effect comparable to LF1 or mod LF2/3, the implants mimicking these movements have to be absolutely huge.

terry947

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • Karma: 15
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2015, 02:09:30 PM »
^well said. Implants give a more obvious outcome. With them it'd be obvious that there is a big difference. But is that really better?

I mean the downsides to implants is that they generally look off, bone recession and possible infection. The bone recession is enough for me to not want to get implants.


terry947

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • Karma: 15
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2015, 10:14:38 PM »
Exactly and say you were to take them out at and older age, your bone loss would probably make everything worse.

Getting implants is tempting though. If the 3D printed bone implants come out in the next 5-10 I'll probably get that.

Optimistic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 579
  • Karma: 18
  • Gender: Male
  • I am class I
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2015, 05:53:27 AM »
Exactly and say you were to take them out at and older age, your bone loss would probably make everything worse.

Getting implants is tempting though. If the 3D printed bone implants come out in the next 5-10 I'll probably get that.

Isn't there a company doing just that? Not 100% bone but "CT Bone" which gets turned into bone eventually? Will be released in Europe next year
01/10/14 - Last night I spilt spaghetti sauce on my chin for the very first time in my life and cried.

molestrip

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 735
  • Karma: 40
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2015, 11:29:53 AM »
I haven't been keeping names but there's lots of companies in this space. In a decade there's going to be good augmentation options. I mostly don't like midface osteotomies because of the low volume of procedures, sensitivity of the region, limited mobility, extra invasiveness, limited access to underside, etc. If you need revision surgery, then getting access to those locations will be tough. But there are lots of people who have these surgeries done and I've seen some of your pictures, some of you have really flat cheeks. I think it's a health issue too, not just aesthetic. The main reason we don't see it more is that most of the business is for people with minor issues and for those augmentations make a lot more sense. That is, when you only need a few mms an osteotomy seems like gross overkill and it's unclear if it can deliver that kind of resolution. It's also unclear to me how good the contours will be, whether the plates will show eventually, or odds of developing fistulas.

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 174
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #67 on: October 09, 2015, 11:32:50 AM »
When it comes to mid face osteotomies, it's all about volume.  An LF1 for example maybe only a 3mm movement, but the volume involved is huge.  ZO - even if the movement is big, the bone involved is very small, so the volume involved is small as well.  Ditto for implants.  To have an effect comparable to LF1 or mod LF2/3, the implants mimicking these movements have to be absolutely huge.
[/quot]

Very smart observation

carlos30

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: 0
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2015, 08:23:59 AM »
Here is an interesting info about why ZSO could not give that masculine look (assuming a properly developed, non-deformed skeleton as staring point). Although it's a quote from plastic surgeons discussing where to place filler for more masculine look, the principle should be the same:

Quote
You are exactly right about where men need volume.  The apple of the cheek and high lateral cheeks are feminine traits.  So in men, I concentrate on widening the width of the cheeks, by placing Voluma on the zygomatic arch (the bone connecting the cheekbone to the skull)).  Additionally, this is placed on the lower side of the bone, whereas in women I place the voluma on the upper side of the cheek bones to give a raised cheek appearance in women.  This results in a masculine look rather than the treatment I do for women which tries to increase central cheek volume and higher cheek bones.
source: http://www.realself.com/question/voluma-lateral-apex-apple-submalar-cheek

Apparently masculine look is mainly about augmenting zygomatic arch, rather than doing stuff on inappropriate places on zygoma which is what exactly ZSO might be. Thus a feminine appearance, as reported by some male patients and as well from that "modified LeFort3" case.

baldguy83

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Karma: 11
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2015, 09:12:21 AM »
I had a ZO done and I'm fairly happy with the results. It gave me quite a bit of really needed width in the midface. I didn't get the chiseled high-cheekboned model look, but that probably would've looked out of place on my thinnish & tallish face anyway.

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 174
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2015, 11:01:43 AM »
Here is an interesting info about why ZSO could not give that masculine look (assuming a properly developed, non-deformed skeleton as staring point). Although it's a quote from plastic surgeons discussing where to place filler for more masculine look, the principle should be the same:
source: http://www.realself.com/question/voluma-lateral-apex-apple-submalar-cheek

Apparently masculine look is mainly about augmenting zygomatic arch, rather than doing stuff on inappropriate places on zygoma which is what exactly ZSO might be. Thus a feminine appearance, as reported by some male patients and as well from that "modified LeFort3" case.



Yeah but is a feminie treatment on a man necessarily a bad thing? I mean look at Johnny Deep's cheekbones or Richard Gere. They have very full cheekbones no? Aren't certain feminine qualities when present in men considered to make men more attractive? Hence the term "pretty boy"??

I'm not talking about facial feminization, but rather that high full cheekbones in a man make the man unique compared to most men and more attractive by comparison. I guess I'd have to see a picture of a man who has had the volumna or whatever surgery done just to the arch and one done to give the apples and higher cheekbones and see which looks better!

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 174
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2015, 12:14:45 PM »
don't these men have the high full apple cheeks your describing? Maybe they have zygomatic arch too, but how is this feminizing??? It looks amazzing!!!!

So please clarify if I'm not understanding or seeing something.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 174
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2015, 12:15:23 PM »
in the first pic i mean the bearded guy who looks amazing despite his age.

PloskoPlus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3044
  • Karma: 140
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2015, 03:20:14 PM »
Men have bigger cheekbones than women.  The only reason that it looks otherwise is that women have narrower jaws and use makeup to accentuate the cheekbones.  IOW, men have bigger facial bones period.

Another "apple-cheeked" man is Kirk Douglas.

Lazlo

  • Private
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3004
  • Karma: 174
Re: Revision zygomatic osteotomy: anyone?
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2015, 04:16:38 PM »
Men have bigger cheekbones than women.  The only reason that it looks otherwise is that women have narrower jaws and use makeup to accentuate the cheekbones.  IOW, men have bigger facial bones period.

Another "apple-cheeked" man is Kirk Douglas.

YEAH AND HE LOOKS BOSS!!!! CHEEKBONES ARE WHERE IT"S f**kING AT. SORRY YOU GUYS GOT f**kED WITH YOUR ZSO's BUT THAT"S WHY YOU NEED FULL ORBITAL RIM AND MALAR ADVANCEMENT UPWARD. THEN YOU CAN BE BOSS.