Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Methods for Brow Fixation: Are They Safe?

  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

No single technique for fixation of the scalp after forehead-lift is universally accepted. Complications such as alopecia, loss of elevation, implant palpability, paresthesia, and dural injury are possible with the variety of techniques used currently. This anatomic study was designed to evaluate the thickness of the calvarium at selected points used in brow fixation. The depth of cranial penetration necessary for currently used techniques is measured and compared.

Methods

In a study of 14 fresh adult cadavers, calvarial thickness was measured at selected points (A–F) used in various brow-lifting procedures. This was accomplished by drilling holes in selected points and using a depth gauge to measure thickness. Immediately adjacent to selected points, the cranium is prepared for brow fixation using the following techniques: cortical tunnels, 2.0-mm screw fixation (10, 12, and 14 mm), the Mitek 2.0-mm Quickanchor screw, and the Endotine 3.5 Forehead Device. The depths required for adequate fixation and the potential for cranial penetration through the inner table with all the standard techniques are compared.

Results

Depth analysis by mean values showed that sites posterior to the coronal suture (points C–F) were thickest. Depth analysis of sites stratified by gender showed that mean values for the thickness of female skulls were greater than those for males. A review of fixation methods found that cortical tunnels at 45° angles never penetrated the inner table in any of the 14 skulls. Mitek screws never penetrated the inner table, and one Endotine post penetrated the inner table on the left side of one cadaver skull. After placement of 10-, 12-, and 14-mm miniscrews at each of the sites, it was found that three penetrated the inner table. The penetrations all were at far lateral sites, posterior to the coronal suture.

Conclusion

Variation in skull thickness exists among cadaver specimens at different sites on the skull. In this study, thickness increased medially and posteriorly. Women tended to have thicker skulls than men, and age was not a major variable. This is consistent with findings in previous work. Given the unpublished reports of inner table penetration, with cerebrospinal fluid leak after invasive brow fixation, it behooves the surgeon to keep in mind the anatomy of the calvarium and its nuances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adeloye A, Kattan KR, Silverman FN: Thickness of the normal skull in the American blacks and whites. Am J Phys Anthropol 43:23–30, 1975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Apfelburg DB, Jacobs D: Coapt Systems Endotine technology for brow-lift. Letter to the editor. Plast Reconstr Surg 116:336–337, 2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Elahi MM, et al: A new predictive modality of cranial bone thickness. Ann Plast Surg 42:651–657, 1999

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Evans GR, Shahrooz SBS, Ho K: Heads up on brow-lift with Coapt Systems’ Endotine forehead technology. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1504–1505, 2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. FDA Enforcement Report, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 30, 2003. Accessed http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2003, 27th February 2005

  6. Fiala T, Owsley J: Use of the Mitek fixation device in endoscopic brow-lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg 101:1700, 1998

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ishida H, Dodo Y: Cranial thickness of modern and Neolithic populations in Japan. Hum Biol 62:389–401, 1990

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Knize DM: The forehead and temporal fossa: Anatomy and technique. 1st ed. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lynnerup N: Cranial thickness in relation to age, sex, and general body build in a Danish forensic sample. Forensic Sci Int 117:45–51, 2001

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moore KL: Clinically oriented anatomy. 3rd ed. Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore, MD, pp. 637–643, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ortiz-Monasterio F, Barrera G, Olmedo A: The coronal incision in rhytidectomy: The brow lift. Clin Plast Surg 5:167, 1978

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Package Insert, Endotine Forehead. Device instructions for use. Coapt Systems: Palo Alto CA, 2003. Accessed at http://www.coaptsystems.com 27th February 2005

  13. Pensler J, McCarthy JG: The calvarial donor site: An anatomic study in cadavers. Plast Reconstr Surg 75:648–651, 1985

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Peterson J, Dechow PC: Material properties of the inner and outer cortical tables of the human parietal bone. Anat Rec 268:7–15, 2002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramirez OM, Daniel RK: Endoforehead: Subperiosteal approach. In: Endoscopic plastic surgery. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, pp. 46–65, 1995

  16. Rohrich RJ, Beran SJ: Evolving fixation methods in endoscopically assisted forehead rejuvenation: Controversies and rationale. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:(6):1575–1582, 1997

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ross AH, Jantz RL, McCormick WF: Cranial thickness in American females and males. J Forensic Sci 43:267–272, 1998

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ross MD, Lee KA, Castle WM: Skull thickness of black and white races. S. Afr. Med. J. 50:635–638, 1976

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stevens WG, Apfelberg MD, Stoker MD, Schantz SA: The Endotine: A new biodegradable fixation device for endoscopic forehead-lifts. Aesth Surg J 23:103–107, 2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Swift RW, Nolan WB, Aston SJ, Basner AL: Endoscopic brow-lift: Objective results after 1 year. Aesth Surg J 19:287, 1999

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is extended to David Knize, M.D., and Sarah Kelly, M.F.A., for their assistance with this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Jennifer L. Walden M.D., Michael J. Orseck M.D. & Sherrell J. Aston M.D., F.A.C.S.

  2. 50 East 71st Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Jennifer L. Walden M.D.

Authors
  1. Jennifer L. Walden M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Orseck M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sherrell J. Aston M.D., F.A.C.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer L. Walden M.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walden, J.L., Orseck, M.J. & Aston, S.J. Current Methods for Brow Fixation: Are They Safe?. Aesth Plast Surg 30, 541–548 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0063-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-006-0063-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation