Comparison of postoperative pain according to the harvesting method used in hair restorative surgery

Background Postoperative pain is one of the most common concerns of patients undergoing hair transplantation surgery. Because most patients are satisfied with the cosmetic improvement after transplantation, amelioration of postoperative pain would help to increase patient accessibility to hair restorative surgery and greatly impact patient satisfaction with the final cosmetic results. This study was performed to investigate postoperative pain after hair transplantation.

Methods In total, 241 patients (202 who underwent follicular unit transplantation [FUT] and 39 who underwent follicular unit extraction [FUE]) were eligible for the study. Postoperative pain was evaluated on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 using the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale. The patients’ medical records were retrospectively reviewed for information on the harvesting method, number of transplanted grafts, size of donor design, and laxity, elasticity, and glidability of the scalp in relation to postoperative pain.

Results Postoperative pain after hair transplantation, assessed with the Wong-Baker Faces Pain Scale, seemed to provide very subjective results. None of the variables were correlated with postoperative pain in the FUT group. Such pain, however, tended to disappear by postoperative day 3. Patients in the FUE group experienced significantly less severe pain than those in the FUT group.

Conclusions Postoperative pain was significantly less severe in patients whose donor hair was harvested by the FUE than FUT method. Postoperative pain had almost disappeared by postoperative day 3 in the FUT group, whereas only minimal pain was present even on postoperative day 1 in the FUE group.

Keywords

Pain - Pain measurement - Pain management - Hair follicle

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 26. Juni 2018

Angenommen: 26. Januar 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. März 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Apfelbaum JL, Chen C, Mehta SS. et al. Postoperative pain experience: results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 534-40
• 2 Nusbaum BP. Techniques to reduce pain associated with hair transplantation: optimizing anesthesia and analgesia. Am J Clin Dermatol 2004; 5: 9-15
• 3 Nussbaum BP. Reducing pain during hair transplant lidocaine infiltration. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27: 98
• 4 Bernstein RM, Rassman WR. Limiting epinephrine in large hair transplant sessions. Hair Transplant Forum Int 2000; 10: 39-41
• 5 Park JH. Association between scalp laxity, elasticity, and glidability and donor strip scar width in hair transplantation and a new elasticity measuring method. Dermatol Surg 2017; 43: 574-81
• 6 Garra G, Singer AJ, Domingo A. et al. The Wong-Baker pain FACES scale measures pain, not fear. Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29: 17-20
• 7 Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science 1965; 150: 971-9
• 8 Kehlet H, Dahl JB. The value of “multimodal” or “balanced analgesia” in postoperative pain treatment. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 1048-56
• 9 Fosko SW, Gibney MD, Harrison B. Repetitive pinching of the skin during lidocaine infiltration reduces patient discomfort. J Am Acad Dermatol 1998; 39: 74-8
• 10 Parsley WM. Vibrators. Hair Transplant Forum Int 2000; 10: 20
• 11 Barusco MN, Leavitt HL, Kirk R. The use of a computerized anesthesia injection system to minimize pain during hair transplant surgery. Hair Transplant Forum Int 2001; 4: 107-9
• 12 True RH, Elliott RM. Microprocessor-controlled local anesthesia versus the conventional syringe technique in hair transplantation. Dermatol Surg 2002; 28: 463-8