Table 1 Results of cosmetic outcome and pain assessment
Researchers | Surgery approach | Score scale (points) | No. of cases | Study design | Follow-up time | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yang et al. [38] | (Transoral) Observation group/control group | Pain: 0–10 | 30/30 | Retrospective studya | Pre-op, post-op 1 day, 3 days, 7 days | Less pain in intervention group on post-op 3 and 7 days |
Yan et al. [26] | Transoral/OT | Cosmetic and pain: 0–10 | 48/42 | Retrospective study | Post-op 3 months | Higher cosmetic satisfaction and less pain in transoral group |
Nguyen et al. [27] | Transoral/OT | Cosmetic: 0–5 Pain: 0–10 | 61/60 | Prospective study | Pre-op and post-op 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks | Higher cosmetic satisfaction in transoral group and no difference in pain |
Wirth et al. [28] | EndoCATS/ABBA/OT | Cosmetic: 1–6 | 59/52/225 | Retrospective study | NA | No difference in cosmetic outcome |
Sun et al. [5] | Trans-axillary/OT | Cosmetic: 1–4 Pain: 0–3 | 105/105 | Retrospective study | Cosmetic: post-op 1 month Pain: post-op 1 week, 1 month | Higher cosmetic satisfaction and more pain in transoral group |
Piromchai et al. [4] | Submental/OT | Cosmetic and pain: 1–10 | 24/24 | Retrospective study | NA | No difference in cosmetic outcome and pain |
Lian et al. [39] | (Anterior cervical approach) MT/MR | Cosmetic and pain: 1–10 | 46/44 | Retrospective study | Post-op 12, 24 h/ NA | More pain for MR group postoperative 12 h and no difference in 24 h; no difference in cosmetic outcome |
Bo et al. [31] | Transthoracic/OT/thermal ablation | Cosmetic and pain: 1–10 | 129/320/56 | Retrospective study | Post-op 1, 3, 6, 12 months | Better cosmetic outcome in thermal ablation than OT group |
Wongwattana et al. [19] | Transoral/axillo-breast | Cosmetic and pain: 1–10 | 11/11 | Retrospective study | Cosmetic: post-op 90 days Pain: post-op 1, 2, 3 days; | More pain in transoral group; no difference in cosmetic outcome |
Nguyen et al. [20] | Transoral/unilateral axillo-breast | Pain: 1–10 Cosmetic: 3 levelsb | 51/50 | Retrospective study | Pain: post-op 1, 4, 7 days/NA | More pain in transoral group; no difference in cosmetic outcome |
Liu et al. [29] | Transoral/OT | Cosmetic: 0–3 | 96/425 | Retrospective study | Post-op 3 months | Better cosmetic outcome in transoral group |
Yuliang et al. [40] | Axillary-breast-shoulder | Cosmetic: 1–4 | 42 | Cohort study | Post-op 6 months | Basically satisfied or very satisfied |
Lee et al. [37] | Trans-axillary/postauricular/OT | Cosmetic: 1–5 | 50/50/50 | Retrospective study | Post-op 3 months, 1 year | Better cosmetic outcome in trans-axillary and postauricular group |
Johri et al. [41] | BABA/OT | Cosmetic: 1–5 Pain: 1–10 | 43/60 | Prospective study | Pre-op, post-op 6 months | More pain and better cosmetic outcome in BABA group |
Sung et al. [21] | GUA/postauricular facelift approach | Cosmetic: 1–5 Pain: 0–10 | 45/20 | Retrospective study | Cosmetic: post-op 1 week, 3 months Pain: pre-op, post-op 1, 3 days, 1 week | No difference between two groups |
Song et al. [22] | Robotic/conventional surgery | Cosmetic: 1–5 Pain: 0–4 | 25/66 | Retrospective study | Post-op 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months | Better cosmetic satisfaction in robotic group More pain in robotic group post-op 1 day and 1 month |
Zhu et al. [23] | Transareola | Cosmetic: 0–10 Pain: 0–5 | 12 | Retrospective study | Cosmetic: 2 months Pain: post-op 24 h | High cosmetic satisfaction and median pain |
Ryu et al. [35] | Trans-axillary/OT | Pain: 0–10 | 45/45 | Prospective study | Post-op 4 h, 1, 2, 3, 10 days | Lower pain scores in robotic group at post-op 1, 2, and 3 days |