title: The impact of endoscopic brow lift on eyebrow morphology, aesthetics, and longevity: objective and subjective measurements over a 5-year period.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The longevity of a brow lift, its morphology, and its contribution to overall facial aesthetics have not been addressed in previous studies using both objective measurements and validated subjective aesthetic scoring systems.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-one patients with a 5.4-year follow-up after subperiosteal endoscopic brow lift were assessed by (1) objective measurements using computer software, (2) validated regional aesthetic scoring systems, and (3) global aesthetic scoring systems.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In part 1, objective measurements confirm a subtle elevation of the brows at less than 5 mm (p<0.001) that persisted at 5.4 years after surgery in all areas except the tail of the eyebrow. In part 2, subjective regional aesthetic scoring indicated that the dimensional change is small but apparent to observers, and is maintained at 5.4 years; that depressor muscle resection with a brow lift provides a statistically significant reduction in glabellar lines, which is maintained at 5.4 years; and that a brow lift provides temporary improvement in forehead lines but that this improvement relapses to baseline at 5.4 years. In part 3, global aesthetic scores suggest that 64 percent patients are still judged as appearing better 5.4 years after a brow lift than before surgery.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This is the first study to provide evidence from both objective measurements and validated subjective aesthetic scoring systems regarding the morphology, benefits, and longevity of endoscopic brow-lift surgery. This demonstrates that a brow lift produces a subtle elevation, with a natural eyebrow morphology close to the original, and with minimal long-term relapse except at the tail of the eyebrow.
  
  
  METHODS
  Therapeutic, IV.
authors.affiliation: London and Glasgow, United Kingdom From King Edward VII Hospital and the Canniesburn Plastic Surgery Unit.
authors.forename: Barry M
authors.initials: BM
authors.lastname: Jones
authors.forename: Steven J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Lo
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D015331:Cohort Studies; D004724:Endoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D004954:Esthetics; D005138:Eyebrows / Q000033:anatomy & histology*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D015361:Rhytidoplasty / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D013518:Surgery, Plastic / Q000379:methods; D013997:Time Factors; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: Troilius C. A comparison between subgaleal and subperiosteal brow lifts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1079–1090
references.citation: Dayan SH, Perkins SW, Vartanian AJ, Wiesman IM. The forehead lift: Endoscopic versus coronal approaches. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2001;25:35–39
references.citation: McKinney P, Sweis I. An accurate technique for fixation in endoscopic brow lift: A 5-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1808–1810
references.citation: Jones BM, Grover R. Endoscopic brow lift: A personal review of 538 patients and comparison of fixation techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1242–1250
references.citation: Sidle DM, Loos BM, Ramirez AL, Kabaker SS, Maas CS. Use of BioGlue surgical adhesive for brow fixation in endoscopic browplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2005;7:393–397
references.citation: Papadopulos NA, Eder M, Weigand C, Biemer E, Kovacs L. A review of 13 years of experience with endoscopic forehead-lift. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2012;14:336–341
references.citation: Bray D, Henstrom DK, Cheney ML, Hadlock TA. Assessing outcomes in facial reanimation: Evaluation and validation of the SMILE system for measuring lip excursion during smiling. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2010;12:352–354
references.citation: Jones BM, Lo SJ. How long does a facelift last? Objective and subjective measurements over a 5-year period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:1317–1327
references.citation: Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Hardas B, et al. A validated brow positioning grading scale. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34(Suppl 2):S150–S154
references.citation: Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Hardas B, et al. A validated grading scale for forehead lines. Dermatol Surg. 2008;34(Suppl 2):S155–S160
references.citation: Narins RS, Brandt F, Leyden J, Lorenc ZP, Rubin M, Smith S. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Restylane versus Zyplast for the correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg. 2003;29:588–595
references.citation: McKinney P, Mossie RD, Zukowski ML. Criteria for the forehead lift. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1991;15:141–147
references.citation: Freund RM, Nolan WB III. Correlation between brow lift outcomes and aesthetic ideals for eyebrow height and shape in females. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;97:1343–1348
references.citation: Ellenbogen R. Transcoronal eyebrow lift with concomitant upper blepharoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1983;71:490–499
references.citation: Baker SB, Dayan JH, Crane A, Kim S. The influence of brow shape on the perception of facial form and brow aesthetics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:2240–2247
references.citation: Ahn MS, Catten M, Maas CS. Temporal brow lift using botulinum toxin A. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:1129–1135