Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer Imaging in Cosmetic Surgery

Abstract

Careful use of computer imaging should actually reduce one's liability when all aspects are considered. Recommendations for such use and specific legal issues are discussed.

Evolution of Preoperative Rhinoplasty Consult by Computer Imaging

“…36 Others have also reiterated that surgery is to be avoided in those who cannot find realistic computer simulations that correlate with their aesthetic goals. 15,37 This is further endorsed by Pearson and Adamson who have proposed that visual test images presented to rhinoplasty patients can serve as a useful tool to determine whether a patient desires a nose that the surgeon will be unable or unwilling to create.…”

“…39 According to Koch et al, imaging shows the secondary effects of a singular change. 37 For example, apparent nasal tip rotation can be increased by removing a dorsal hump. This can aid in the preoperative analysis and be valuable in creating a surgical plan.…”

“…The importance of this type of surgical planning has been discussed by many authors previously. 37,40 In addition, morphing provides a mechanism for critical self-evaluation and can facilitate peer discussions. 35,41 Morphing as a Marketing Tool…”

“…42 Koch et al delineate that with computer imaging certain operations can be discussed with patients that otherwise would not be considered. 37 A typical example is the simulated addition of a chin implant to improve facial harmony in a rhinoplasty candidate. Commenting on the marketability of computer imaging, Mark Berman highlights that it also has a positive reflection in the community, as potential patients learn of the surgeon's ability to demonstrate the surgical plan from previous patients.…”

The Validity of 3dMD Vultus in Predicting Soft Tissue Morphology Following Orthognathic Surgery

“…It has however been questioned whether showing computer generated predictions of possible post-surgical results to patients raises the possibility of litigation if a patient feels the outcome is dissimilar from the prediction (Chavez et al, 1997;Koch et al, 1998;Sarver et al, 1998;Loh et al, 2001). Pospisil (1987) advocated that clinicians do not attach significance to these tracings to such an extent that they are shown to the patient, until their accuracy has been proven.…”