# Date: June 6-9, 2012
# Location: The Bellagio, Las Vegas, NV
# Booth Number: 130-134
Mid-June in Las Vegas can get as hot as one can imagine the desert can get, and “so hot” is an appropriate metaphor to describe the aesthetic community’s best meeting of the year, in my opinion: The Facial Cosmetic Surgery Symposium. Hundreds of high-caliber physicians converge from all points of the globe, and for several days meet in the air-conditioned comfort of the Bellagio hotel on the Strip and eagerly learn from one another.
By eagerly, I mean the atmosphere at this meeting is always open and very positive, and does not include “turf war” baggage that can characterize many of the Society-sponsored meetings. Physicians representing a variety of specialties meet on neutral ground to discuss with and learn from one another.
The event was a practically nonstop parade of well-orchestrated educational seminars and presentations on all things aesthetic. It is no coincidence that PSP: Plastic Surgery Practice is the media partner for this meeting. PSP ‘s staff chose this meeting over all the others for its exceptional program, and in disclosing this I must add that no money changes hands in PSP ’s support of the meeting.
Of the many topics brought up in public debate and private conversations, a few important themes bubbled up to the surface:
INVASIVE VERSUS NONINVASIVE PROCEDURES
Many patients in aesthetic practices around the world have asked for more noninvasive treatments in response to the need for cosmetic procedures that cost less, don’t involve a knife, and hold the promise of less downtime. The proliferation of many energy-based medical devices have sought to help physicians with performing noninvasive treatments, such as body contouring, cellulite reduction, facial recontouring, fat removal, etc.
Yet, throughout my conversations with many physicians, a single jarring observation emerged: By and large, practitioners say most of these devices do not work as advertised, or, there have not been enough scientific or clinical studies to prove that they work with any kind of regularity. Therefore, many of them claim to be going back to encouraging patients to accept plain old surgical solutions when it comes to cosmetic rejuvenation. I suppose this kind of backlash against such a large influx of medical devices is to be expected when the market is flooded with too many systems that do less than is claimed and that cost practitioners too much money to buy and maintain.
