4.4 Review

Hand Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review of Techniques, Outcomes, and Complications

Journal

AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume 46, Issue 1, Pages 437-449

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-021-02519-6

Keywords

Hand rejuvenation; Esthetic; Plastic surgery; Hand

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hand rejuvenation is a safe and effective surgical intervention for reducing dorsal hand atrophy, commonly using Radiesse and fat grafting with minimal complications. Further studies are needed to compare the long-term outcomes of different interventions.
Background Hand rejuvenation is an increasingly popular cosmetic procedure for hand atrophy and aging. The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the techniques, outcomes, and complications of surgical hand rejuvenation. Methods A systematic review was undertaken using a computerized search. Publication descriptors, methodological details, techniques, outcomes, and complications were extracted. Articles were assessed using the MINORS and Cochrane instruments. Results Thirty-one studies were included. Most studies were published in the last five years (51.6 percent) and were prospective case series (35.5 percent). The mean age of patients was 56 (range 21-82), while the mean sample size was 47 (range 10-220). The most commonly examined interventions were Radiesse (32.2 percent) and fat grafting (32.2 percent). Major complications were not observed in any study, while minor complications such as edema and pain were temporary. Injection techniques varied, however, the proximal to distal fanning technique and using a cannula was associated with a lower risk of complications. Both Radiesse and fat grafting had robust long-term esthetic outcomes. Conclusions Hand rejuvenation is a safe and efficacious surgical intervention to reduce dorsal hand atrophy. Further studies are needed to compare the long-term outcomes of common interventions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available