Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness of fat autografts for cervicomental rejuvenation procedures and chin augmentation. Material and methods. The study included 70 male and female patients aged 35-65 years with age-related changes in the lower third of the face, localized fat deposits in cervicomental area and insufficient chin projection between 2020 and 2024. All patients were divided into three groups: the 1st group (n=30) — medial platysmaplasty and chin augmentation with subplatysmal fat autograft; the 2nd group (n=15) — removal of Bichat’s fat and chin augmentation with fat autograft using Bichat’s fat pad; the 3rd group (n=25) — medial platysmaplasty and chin contouring with lipofilling. Results. Patients with various age-related changes in the lower third of the face and insufficient chin projection underwent cervicomental rejuvenation and chin augmentation. In case of chin augmentation with subplatysmal fat autograft, chin prominence increased by 0.6±0.2 cm after 3 months, 0.5±0.3 cm after 6 months and 0.4±0.2 cm after 12 months. In chin augmentation using Bichat’s fat pad autograft, chin projection increased by 0.5±0.2, 0.4±0.2 and 0.3±0.4 cm, respectively. In chin contouring with lipofilling, chin projection increased by 0.6±0.4, 0.4±0.2 and 0.2±0.1 cm, respectively. In the 1st group, 2 (3%) patients had uneven chin contours. There were no infectious-inflammatory complications. Conclusion. Autologous fat injections (lipofilling and fat autografts) are preferable for chin augmentation. Augmentation with subplatysmal fat autografts is a minimally invasive, safe, predictable, and long-term method for chin augmentation.

Background: Robot-assisted surgery has become increasingly used across multiple specialties; however, its integration into aesthetic plastic surgery remains limited. Individualized patient requirements, such as concealed scar placement, superficial soft tissue dissection, and patient-specific docking angles, are major challenges to their adoption, unlike in other specialties. This review aimed to evaluate the current use of robotic systems in plastic surgery, with a particular focus on aesthetic procedures, operative outcomes, and existing technological limitations. Methods: Multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were systematically searched to identify studies published between 2011 and 2026. Data on robotic platforms, operative duration, rehabilitation outcomes, and aesthetic indications were extracted and analyzed. Robotic systems such as da Vinci, Symani, MUSA, and ARTAS demonstrated feasibility across reconstructive subspecialties. However, their clinical application remains limited, as purely aesthetic procedures are rare, highlighting a significant lack of standardized docking methods and dedicated instruments. Results: The data showed that robotic platforms offer great advantages, such as precision and minimally invasive access; however, their high costs, bulky instrumentation, and limited docking methods are hurdles for their adoption in aesthetic surgery. Conclusions: Robot-assisted aesthetic plastic surgery remains in an early developmental stage. Further research is required to establish reproducible docking standards and expand its clinical indications. Advancements in single-port systems, artificial intelligence integration, and surgeon training will facilitate broader clinical implementation.

Background: Robot-assisted surgery has become increasingly used across multiple specialties; however, its integration into aesthetic plastic surgery remains limited. Individualized patient requirements, such as concealed scar placement, superficial soft tissue dissection, and patient-specific docking angles, are major challenges to its adoption, unlike in other specialties. This review aimed to evaluate the current use of robotic systems in plastic surgery, with a particular focus on aesthetic procedures, operative outcomes, and existing technological limitations. Methods: Multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were extensively searched to identify studies published between 2011 and 2026. Data on robotic platforms, operative duration, rehabilitation outcomes, and aesthetic indications were extracted and analyzed. Robotic systems such as da Vinci, Symani, MUSA, and ARTAS demonstrated feasibility across reconstructive subspecialties. However, their clinical application remains limited, as purely aesthetic procedures are rare, highlighting a significant lack of standardized docking methods and dedicated instruments. Results: The data show that robotic platforms offer great advantages, such as precision and minimally invasive access; however, their high costs, bulky instrumentation, and limited docking methods represent barriers to their adoption in aesthetic surgery. Conclusions: Robot-assisted aesthetic plastic surgery remains in the early stage of development. Further research is required to establish reproducible docking standards and expand its clinical indications. Advancements in single-port systems, artificial intelligence integration, and surgeon training will facilitate broader clinical implementation.