Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis
Methodological innovation and clinical optimization emerged across cosmetic domains. A new end-to-end workflow identified and optimized plant extracts for cosmetic actives, while a large retrospective comparison suggests subfascial breast augmentation may reduce key complications versus subpectoral placement. Additionally, national database analysis indicates same-day discharge after orthognathic surgery is not associated with higher 30-day readmission.
Summary
Methodological innovation and clinical optimization emerged across cosmetic domains. A new end-to-end workflow identified and optimized plant extracts for cosmetic actives, while a large retrospective comparison suggests subfascial breast augmentation may reduce key complications versus subpectoral placement. Additionally, national database analysis indicates same-day discharge after orthognathic surgery is not associated with higher 30-day readmission.
Research Themes
- Cosmetic ingredient discovery and optimization
- Technique selection and complication reduction in aesthetic breast surgery
- Ambulatory pathways and safety in facial/orthognathic surgery
Selected Articles
1. A Workflow for Selecting, Profiling, and Optimizing Plant Extracts for Cosmetic Applications.
The authors present an end-to-end, reproducible workflow to prioritize and optimize plant extracts for cosmetic actives. Screening 1,614 species led to 18 candidates profiled with HPLC-DAD/ELSD and in vitro assays; a dual bioactivity-novelty score identified top species, and controlled rotational geoponics improved antioxidant performance of Borago officinalis at low temperature.
Impact: This work provides a generalizable methodological framework linking discovery, profiling, and agronomic optimization—bridging ingredient science with scalable production for cosmetics.
Clinical Implications: While preclinical, the workflow accelerates translation of safer, effective natural actives into dermatologic and cosmetic products, potentially improving efficacy and sustainability of formulations.
Key Findings
- Screened 1,614 plant species; 18 shortlisted for HPLC-DAD/ELSD profiling and in vitro antioxidant/enzymatic assays.
- A dual scoring system (bioactivity + novelty) prioritized four promising species for cosmetic development.
- Controlled rotational geoponics of Borago officinalis enhanced antioxidant properties under low-temperature conditions.
Methodological Strengths
- End-to-end, reproducible workflow from regulatory screening to phytochemical profiling and functional assays.
- Integration of agronomic optimization (rotational geoponics) to enhance bioactivity of a candidate species.
Limitations
- Predominantly in vitro assays; lack of in vivo or clinical validation.
- Generalizability beyond the French flora and industrial partner conditions remains to be tested.
Future Directions: Validate prioritized extracts in skin-relevant in vitro models (e.g., reconstructed epidermis), conduct safety/toxicity profiling, and transition to early clinical testing with standardized cultivation SOPs.
2. Subpectoral vs Subfascial Cosmetic Breast Augmentation: Are We Ready to Settle?
In a single-surgeon retrospective series (n=193), subfascial augmentation had significantly lower rates of capsular contracture (1.1% vs 5.2%), lateral malposition (8.8% vs 23.4%), and double-bubble deformity (0% vs 3.7%) than subpectoral placement, with similar acute complication rates. Larger implant volumes correlated with lateral malposition across planes.
Impact: This is the first direct comparison of subfascial versus subpectoral augmentation via inframammary incisions, providing clinically actionable evidence on complication profiles that may shift plane selection.
Clinical Implications: For patients prioritizing function and aesthetic stability (e.g., athletes), subfascial placement may reduce capsular contracture, lateral malposition, and double-bubble risk. Implant sizing remains critical to minimize malposition.
Key Findings
- Subfascial vs subpectoral: lower capsular contracture (1.1% vs 5.2%, p=0.04).
- Subfascial vs subpectoral: lower lateral malposition (8.8% vs 23.4%, p<0.001) and no double-bubble deformity (0% vs 3.7%, p=0.02).
- Acute complication rates were low and similar (0.5% vs 1.6%, p=0.61); larger implants were associated with lateral malposition.
Methodological Strengths
- Direct head-to-head comparison of subfascial and subpectoral planes within a single surgeon’s practice reduces technique variability.
- Balanced cohorts across a 12-year period with clearly defined complication endpoints and statistical testing.
Limitations
- Retrospective design with potential selection confounding; no propensity matching or multivariable adjustment reported.
- Generalizability limited to inframammary approach and single-surgeon technique.
Future Directions: Prospective, multicenter comparative studies with standardized implant selection and patient-reported outcomes to validate complication differences and functional benefits.
3. Is Same Day Discharge Associated With Readmission After Orthognathic Surgery?
Using NSQIP data (n=2,056), same-day discharge after orthognathic surgery was not associated with higher 30-day readmission (0.40% vs 1.10%, RR 0.4, P=.3). Adoption of same-day pathways increased from 10.7% (2011) to 23.1% (2023).
Impact: Provides large-scale, contemporary safety data supporting ambulatory pathways in orthognathic surgery, with implications for cost, access, and patient experience.
Clinical Implications: In appropriately selected patients, same-day discharge can be considered without increasing 30-day readmissions, enabling value-based care and increased operating room throughput.
Key Findings
- Same-day discharge vs inpatient admission: 30-day readmission 0.40% vs 1.10% (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.09–1.72; P=.3).
- Same-day discharge utilization increased from 10.7% (2011) to 23.1% (2023) (P=.03).
- No demographic, medical, or perioperative covariates were associated with readmission in bivariate analysis.
Methodological Strengths
- Large national surgical quality database (NSQIP) spanning 2011–2023.
- Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and predefined primary outcome (30-day readmission).
Limitations
- Retrospective design with primarily bivariate analyses; potential residual confounding.
- Readmission is a crude safety endpoint; other outcomes (e.g., ER visits, pain control) not assessed.
Future Directions: Prospective implementation studies with risk-adjusted outcomes and patient-reported measures to refine selection criteria and perioperative pathways.