Premium Doctors’ Approach to Aesthetic Treatments for Men: Trends and Clinical Outcomes

1. Introduction

The domain of aesthetic medicine has historically been associated with women, but the 21st century has witnessed a significant increase in men seeking cosmetic procedures to address age-related changes, body contouring, and facial harmonization (American Society of Plastic Surgeons [ASPS], 2023; International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery [ISAPS], 2022). This shift reflects societal changes, including increased awareness, destigmatization of male aesthetic treatments, and a desire to maintain a competitive edge in personal and professional spheres (Rohrich & Afrooz, 2020; Glaser et al., 2019). Men’s motivations extend beyond vanity, encompassing improved self-esteem, career prospects, and a vibrant, healthy appearance (Al-Hamdan et al., 2021; Kaminer et al., 2018).

Male anatomy and physiology necessitate specialized approaches to achieve natural, masculine enhancements, such as a strong jawline, defined chin, and reduced signs of fatigue (Patel & Borschel, 2022; Ghasemian et al., 2019). "Premium doctors," characterized by advanced expertise and patient-centric care, tailor treatments to these goals, leveraging platforms like PremiumDoctors.org to connect patients with qualified professionals (Ghalamghash, 2023a). Dr. Reza Ghalamghash, a leader in aesthetic medicine, exemplifies this approach, integrating advanced technologies and patient education to optimize outcomes (Ghalamghash, 2023b, 2024a).

Despite growing interest, a comprehensive synthesis of trends and outcomes specific to male aesthetic treatments is needed. This review aims to: (1) identify prevalent treatment trends for men (2015–2025); (2) synthesize clinical outcomes, including efficacy, safety, and satisfaction; (3) discuss premium doctors’ approaches to male patients; and (4) highlight literature gaps and future research directions.

2. Methodology

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author used Gemini (https://gemini.google.com/) and Grok (https://grok.com/) to collect information and write articles. After using these tools/services, the author physically reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2015 and June 2025. Search terms included "male aesthetics," "men’s cosmetic procedures," "male facial rejuvenation," "male body contouring," "Botox men," "dermal fillers men," "laser treatments men," "gynecomastia surgery," "male blepharoplasty," "rhinoplasty men," "patient satisfaction male aesthetics," "complications male aesthetic surgery," "ethical considerations male aesthetic medicine," "masculine aesthetic," and "trends male cosmetic," combined with Boolean operators.

2.1. Inclusion Criteria

• Studies focused on aesthetic treatments for men.
• Articles addressing trends, clinical outcomes (efficacy, safety, satisfaction), psychological impacts, or ethical considerations.
• Original research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and large case series.
• English-language publications from 2015–2025.

2.2. Exclusion Criteria

• Studies not specific to male patients (unless providing relevant comparative data).
• Case reports or small case series (n < 10), unless offering unique insights.
• Editorials, opinion pieces, or non-peer-reviewed content (except PremiumDoctors.org for contextual mention).
• Studies on reconstructive surgery without an aesthetic component.
• Research published before 2015.

Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review. Reference lists were manually checked for additional sources. Data were extracted on procedure types, patient demographics, trends, outcomes, and male-specific considerations, then synthesized to address the review’s objectives. Plagiarism checks confirmed a similarity index below 5% (excluding references).

3. Results

The literature reveals distinct trends and outcomes in male aesthetic treatments, categorized into non-surgical and surgical interventions, with a focus on natural, masculine enhancements.

3.1. Trends in Male Aesthetic Treatments

Men’s demand for aesthetic procedures has risen steadily, with ASPS and ISAPS reporting year-over-year increases (ASPS, 2023; ISAPS, 2022). Key trends include:

• Minimally Invasive Procedures: Non-surgical treatments dominate due to minimal downtime and natural results (Rzany et al., 2019; Solish & Carruthers, 2017).
• Facial Harmonization: Men seek to reduce wrinkles, volume loss, and fatigue signs, particularly around the eyes and forehead, while enhancing jawline and chin definition (Carruthers & Carruthers, 2016; Beer et al., 2020; Ghalamghash, 2024b).
• Body Contouring: Procedures like cryolipolysis and gynecomastia correction target a sculpted physique (Rohrich & Afrooz, 2020; Goldie et al., 2018).
• Hair Restoration: Hair transplants and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) address male pattern baldness (Ghasemian et al., 2019; Grekin & Grekin, 2016).

Table 1. Popular Aesthetic Treatment Categories for Men (2015–2025).

Treatment Category	Common Procedures	Key Trends/Motivations
Non-Surgical	Neuromodulators (Botox, Dysport), Dermal Fillers (HA, CaHA), Laser Skin Resurfacing, IPL, Chemical Peels, Microneedling, RF Skin Tightening, HIFU, Cryolipolysis, Muscle Stimulation, PRP	Subtle, natural results; minimal downtime; anti-aging (forehead, crow’s feet); facial sculpting (jawline, chin); skin texture; fat reduction; hair restoration
Surgical	Blepharoplasty, Rhinoplasty, Facelift/Necklift, Otoplasty, Hair Transplant, Liposuction, Gynecomastia Correction, Pectoral Implants, Abdominoplasty	Significant age-related changes; structural corrections; athletic physique; long-lasting results

Table 1. Popular Aesthetic Treatment Categories for Men (2015–2025).

Treatment Category	Common Procedures	Key Trends/Motivations
Non-Surgical	Neuromodulators (Botox, Dysport), Dermal Fillers (HA, CaHA), Laser Skin Resurfacing, IPL, Chemical Peels, Microneedling, RF Skin Tightening, HIFU, Cryolipolysis, Muscle Stimulation, PRP	Subtle, natural results; minimal downtime; anti-aging (forehead, crow’s feet); facial sculpting (jawline, chin); skin texture; fat reduction; hair restoration
Surgical	Blepharoplasty, Rhinoplasty, Facelift/Necklift, Otoplasty, Hair Transplant, Liposuction, Gynecomastia Correction, Pectoral Implants, Abdominoplasty	Significant age-related changes; structural corrections; athletic physique; long-lasting results

3.2. Non-Surgical Treatment Outcomes

Non-surgical procedures offer subtle enhancements with minimal disruption.

3.2.1. Neuromodulators (Botulinum Toxin Type A)

Botulinum toxin (e.g., Botox, Dysport) is the most popular non-surgical treatment for men, reducing dynamic wrinkles (Carruthers & Carruthers, 2016; Rzany et al., 2019).

• Efficacy: 80–95% wrinkle reduction, with high satisfaction (Haddad et al., 2020; Kane et al., 2017).
• Safety: Temporary side effects (bruising, swelling, asymmetry) resolve quickly; serious complications are rare (Braz & Valle, 2019).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Higher doses and specific injection patterns maintain masculine brow flatness (Surek et al., 2021; Ghalamghash, 2023b).

3.2.2. Dermal Fillers

Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers enhance jawline, chin, temples, and undereye areas (Beer et al., 2020; Ghasemian et al., 2019).

• Efficacy: High satisfaction for volume restoration and contouring (Lowe & Lowe, 2017).
• Safety: Transient swelling, bruising; rare complications include vascular occlusion and granulomas (Ozturk et al., 2016).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Emphasis on angularity and projection, often requiring higher volumes (Patel & Borschel, 2022).

3.2.3. Energy-Based Devices

Lasers, RF, and HIFU improve skin texture, pigmentation, and mild laxity (Habbema et al., 2016; Lim & Kim, 2019).

• Efficacy: Significant improvement in photoaging and fat reduction (Dover et al., 2017).
• Safety: Redness, swelling, and temporary pigmentation changes; risks minimized with experienced practitioners (Avram & Harry, 2016).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Thicker skin and beard areas require adjusted parameters (Ghalamghash, 2024a).

Table 2. Clinical Outcomes of Popular Non-Surgical Treatments in Men.

Treatment	Primary Indication	Typical Efficacy	Common Side Effects	Patient Satisfaction	Key Male Considerations
Neuromodulators	Forehead lines, glabellar lines, crow’s feet	80–95% wrinkle reduction	Bruising, swelling, mild asymmetry	Very High	Higher doses, flatter brow
Dermal Fillers	Jawline/chin, temples, undereye, midface	Significant contouring/volume	Swelling, bruising, redness	High	Angularity, higher volumes
Lasers/IPL	Photoaging, pigmentation, texture	Moderate to High	Redness, swelling, PIH	High	Thicker skin, beard area
Cryolipolysis	Localized fat (abdomen, flanks)	20–25% fat reduction	Numbness, bruising, rare hyperplasia	High	Targeted fat pockets
PRP (Hair)	Androgenetic alopecia	Slows hair loss, promotes regrowth	Scalp tenderness	Moderate to High	Multiple sessions

Table 2. Clinical Outcomes of Popular Non-Surgical Treatments in Men.

Treatment	Primary Indication	Typical Efficacy	Common Side Effects	Patient Satisfaction	Key Male Considerations
Neuromodulators	Forehead lines, glabellar lines, crow’s feet	80–95% wrinkle reduction	Bruising, swelling, mild asymmetry	Very High	Higher doses, flatter brow
Dermal Fillers	Jawline/chin, temples, undereye, midface	Significant contouring/volume	Swelling, bruising, redness	High	Angularity, higher volumes
Lasers/IPL	Photoaging, pigmentation, texture	Moderate to High	Redness, swelling, PIH	High	Thicker skin, beard area
Cryolipolysis	Localized fat (abdomen, flanks)	20–25% fat reduction	Numbness, bruising, rare hyperplasia	High	Targeted fat pockets
PRP (Hair)	Androgenetic alopecia	Slows hair loss, promotes regrowth	Scalp tenderness	Moderate to High	Multiple sessions

3.3. Surgical Treatment Outcomes

Surgical procedures address significant aesthetic concerns with lasting results.

3.3.1. Blepharoplasty

Addresses hooded eyelids and undereye bags (Patel & Borschel, 2022).

• Efficacy: Rejuvenates periorbital area, improves vision (Kim & Oh, 2017).
• Safety: Bruising, swelling, dryness; rare hematoma or infection (Rohrich & Afrooz, 2020).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Avoids feminization, preserves flat brow (Mendelson & Wong, 2018).

3.3.2. Rhinoplasty

Corrects nasal asymmetries and enhances masculine features (Ghasemian et al., 2019).

• Efficacy: High satisfaction with realistic outcomes (Constantian & Lin, 2015).
• Safety: Swelling, bruising; rare breathing issues or revisions (Toriumi & Patel, 2017).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Strong dorsum, avoid overly upturned tip (Daniel, 2018).

3.3.3. Gynecomastia Correction

Reduces enlarged male breasts (Goldie et al., 2018).

• Efficacy: High satisfaction with improved chest contour (Shorter & Gold, 2016).
• Safety: Risks include hematoma, seroma, infection (Rohrich & Afrooz, 2020).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Combines liposuction and glandular excision for masculine contour.

3.3.4. Liposuction and Abdominoplasty

Targets fat and excess skin for a toned physique (Rohrich & Afrooz, 2020).

• Efficacy: Improves contours, boosts confidence (Pitman et al., 2016).
• Safety: Risks include seroma, hematoma, irregularities (ASPS, 2023).
• Male-Specific Considerations: Focus on "V-taper" and athletic definition (Constantian & Lin, 2015).

Table 3. Clinical Outcomes of Major Surgical Treatments in Men.

Procedure	Primary Indication	Typical Efficacy	Common Complications	Patient Satisfaction	Key Male Considerations
Blepharoplasty	Hooded eyelids, undereye bags	Periorbital rejuvenation	Bruising, swelling, hematoma	Very High	Masculine brow, avoid feminization
Rhinoplasty	Nasal asymmetry, dorsal hump	Improved facial harmony	Swelling, bruising, revisions	High	Strong dorsum, avoid upturned tip
Gynecomastia Correction	Enlarged male breasts	Masculine chest contour	Hematoma, seroma, infection	Very High	Liposuction and excision
Liposuction/Abdominoplasty	Localized fat, excess skin	Improved body contour	Seroma, hematoma, irregularities	High	"V-taper," hematoma risk

Table 3. Clinical Outcomes of Major Surgical Treatments in Men.

Procedure	Primary Indication	Typical Efficacy	Common Complications	Patient Satisfaction	Key Male Considerations
Blepharoplasty	Hooded eyelids, undereye bags	Periorbital rejuvenation	Bruising, swelling, hematoma	Very High	Masculine brow, avoid feminization
Rhinoplasty	Nasal asymmetry, dorsal hump	Improved facial harmony	Swelling, bruising, revisions	High	Strong dorsum, avoid upturned tip
Gynecomastia Correction	Enlarged male breasts	Masculine chest contour	Hematoma, seroma, infection	Very High	Liposuction and excision
Liposuction/Abdominoplasty	Localized fat, excess skin	Improved body contour	Seroma, hematoma, irregularities	High	"V-taper," hematoma risk

4. Discussion

The rising popularity of aesthetic treatments among men reflects a profound societal shift towards self-care and appearance consciousness, driven by increased destigmatization and a desire for professional and personal competitiveness (Al-Hamdan et al., 2021; Kaminer et al., 2018). This trend underscores the evolving male aesthetic ideal, which prioritizes looking refreshed, fit, and approachable while preserving masculine features, such as a strong jawline, defined chin, and minimal signs of fatigue (Patel & Borschel, 2022). Premium doctors, characterized by their deep understanding of male anatomy and patient-centric approaches, play a pivotal role in addressing these nuanced goals. For instance, neuromodulator injections in men require higher doses and specific patterns to account for stronger facial muscles, ensuring a flatter, masculine brow without feminization (Surek et al., 2021; Ghalamghash, 2023b). Similarly, dermal fillers are strategically placed to enhance angularity and projection, often requiring larger volumes to suit male facial structures (Beer et al., 2020). These tailored approaches, supported by platforms like PremiumDoctors.org, ensure high patient satisfaction by aligning treatments with individual aesthetic aspirations (Ghalamghash, 2023a).

Clinical outcomes for both non-surgical and surgical interventions demonstrate high efficacy and satisfaction, reflecting the effectiveness of premium doctors’ specialized techniques. Non-surgical treatments, such as neuromodulators and fillers, offer significant improvements with minimal downtime, aligning with the busy lifestyles of male patients (Haddad et al., 2020; Lowe & Lowe, 2017). Energy-based devices, including lasers and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), further expand non-invasive options, addressing skin texture, fat reduction with high satisfaction rates (Dover et al., 2017; Ghalamghash, 2024c). Surgical procedures, such as gynecomastia correction and blepharoplasty, yield transformative results, particularly for body image and periorbital rejuvenation, with patients reporting enhanced confidence (Shorter & Gold, 2016; Kim & Oh, 2017). However, male physiology, such as increased vascularity, may elevate risks like hematoma, necessitating meticulous surgical techniques and robust post-operative care (Constantian & Lin, 2015; Rohrich & Afrooz, 2020).

The premium doctor approach transcends technical skill, encompassing comprehensive patient education, ethical practice, and the use of advanced technologies like ultrasound for precise outcomes (Ghalamghash, 2024a). Thorough consultations ensure realistic expectations, with screening for body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) to prevent overtreatment, particularly given social media’s influence on idealized self-image (Honigman & Phillips, 2020). This holistic approach is critical, as men may face unique psychological pressures, such as societal expectations of masculinity, which premium doctors address through empathetic communication and tailored treatment plans (Ghalamghash, 2024b).

Despite these advancements, significant gaps in the literature persist. Long-term outcome studies are needed to assess the durability of non-surgical treatments and the need for maintenance, particularly for fillers and neuromodulators (Ghalamghash, 2024a). Standardized, male-specific outcome measures are lacking, complicating the assessment of satisfaction and psychological benefits. Comparative studies evaluating different techniques in male cohorts are scarce, and the psychological impacts of aesthetic treatments on men require rigorous quantification using validated tools. Economic factors influencing access to quality care also warrant exploration, as aesthetic treatments can not be affordable for all demographics. The role of preventative aesthetic strategies, such as early skincare regimens tailored for men, remains underexplored but could prevent more invasive interventions later (Ghasemian et al., 2019). Additionally, the pervasive influence of social media necessitates updated ethical guidelines to address unrealistic expectations and responsible marketing practices (Honigman & Phillips, 2020).

Future research should prioritize prospective, long-term studies to evaluate the sustainability of aesthetic outcomes and their impact on quality of life. Developing male-specific outcome scales, leveraging technologies like AI for personalized treatment planning, and exploring economic accessibility will further enhance the field (Ghalamghash, 2023a). Premium doctors must continue to lead in integrating evidence-based practices with patient-centered care to ensure the field evolves responsibly, maintaining high standards of safety and satisfaction.

5. Conclusions

The rise in male aesthetic treatments reflects cultural acceptance of self-enhancement. Premium doctors deliver high efficacy and satisfaction through specialized expertise and patient-centric care (Ghalamghash, 2023a, 2024b). Ongoing research is needed to refine protocols, standardize measures, and explore long-term impacts, ensuring ethical practice and optimal outcomes.