Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37082332›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023

Offering No-Cost Cosmetic Revisions: The Experience of an Academic Cosmetic Surgery Program.

Steven P Moura, Peter J Wirth, Ellen C Shaffrey, Pradeep K Attaluri, Venkat K Rao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Steven P Moura
Pradeep K Attaluri
Venkat K Rao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The financial principles of a no-cost revision policy and their implications for revision rates are not well understood. Objectives: Therefore, the primary objective of this retrospective study is to report our no-cost revision rates and, secondarily, to survey the cosmetic revision policies of other cosmetic surgery practices and detail the financial principles underpinning no-cost revisions. Methods: All aesthetic surgeries and no-cost revisions performed by the plastic surgeons, oculoplastic surgeons, and facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons at our academic outpatient cosmetic surgery center from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2022 were identified using procedural codes. Data on the number of surgeries, number of revisions, operative minutes, and time intervals between initial and revision surgeries were collected. A survey was administered to assess the revision policies of similar cosmetic surgery practices. Results: A total of 1491 aesthetic surgeries and minimally invasive procedures were included, and 125 revision procedures were performed (8.4%). Thigh lifts (3, 13.6%), rhinoplasties or septoplasties (25, 15.8%), and otoplasties (3, 27.3%) had the highest revision rates. Three practices (15%) offered cosmetic revisions at no cost, 9 (45%) did not apply a surgeon's fee, 5 (25%) evaluated fees on a case-by-case basis, 1 (5%) offered revisions with an insurance policy, and 2 (10%) cosmetic surgery practices did not offer revisions at a reduced rate. Conclusions: Despite offering revisions at no cost, our revision rates are reasonable for an academic cosmetic surgery practice. The revision policies offered to patients on the private market are varied, but most surveyed practices offer revisions at either a reduced rate or no cost. Level of Evidence 4:

Identifiers

PMID37082332
PMCPMC10111429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.