Sushanth Vayalapra, Daniel N Guerero, Vinesh Sandhu, Armand Ak Happy, Delaram Imantalab, Priyanka Kissoonsingh, Ankur Khajuria
{"title":"Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System and Deep Plane Facelift Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Sushanth Vayalapra, Daniel N Guerero, Vinesh Sandhu, Armand Ak Happy, Delaram Imantalab, Priyanka Kissoonsingh, Ankur Khajuria","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Facelift surgery (rhytidectomy) addresses skin laxity, soft tissue descent, and volume loss, with techniques such as the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) and deep plane facelifts offering distinct advantages. However, the optimal technique remains debated due to differences in complication rates and aesthetic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare complication rates and aesthetic outcomes of modern facelift techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and LILACS, was conducted up to May 2024. Eligible studies reported on SMAS or deep technique facelifts with outcomes such as complication rates, aesthetic results, and patient satisfaction. Studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series with more than 10 patients. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool complication rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 47 studies involving 10,766 patients were included. Hematoma rates were 3% for deep technique facelifts and 2% for SMAS facelifts. Infection rates were low for both techniques. Nerve injury rates were similar between groups; most reported nerve injuries were temporary and resolved over time, while permanent nerve injury was rare. Aesthetic outcomes showed significant improvements with both techniques; however, only one study directly compared them, finding superior midface rejuvenation with deep technique facelifts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both SMAS and deep techniques demonstrate comparable safety profiles, although limited comparative data and heterogeneous outcome measures preclude definitive conclusions about relative efficacy. While some evidence suggests potential advantages of deep approaches in midface rejuvenation, technique selection should be individualized. Future research requires standardized outcome measures and prospective comparative studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004454","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Facelift surgery (rhytidectomy) addresses skin laxity, soft tissue descent, and volume loss, with techniques such as the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) and deep plane facelifts offering distinct advantages. However, the optimal technique remains debated due to differences in complication rates and aesthetic outcomes.
Objective: The aim of the study was to compare complication rates and aesthetic outcomes of modern facelift techniques.
Methods: A systematic search of databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and LILACS, was conducted up to May 2024. Eligible studies reported on SMAS or deep technique facelifts with outcomes such as complication rates, aesthetic results, and patient satisfaction. Studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series with more than 10 patients. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool complication rates.
Results: A total of 47 studies involving 10,766 patients were included. Hematoma rates were 3% for deep technique facelifts and 2% for SMAS facelifts. Infection rates were low for both techniques. Nerve injury rates were similar between groups; most reported nerve injuries were temporary and resolved over time, while permanent nerve injury was rare. Aesthetic outcomes showed significant improvements with both techniques; however, only one study directly compared them, finding superior midface rejuvenation with deep technique facelifts.
Conclusions: Both SMAS and deep techniques demonstrate comparable safety profiles, although limited comparative data and heterogeneous outcome measures preclude definitive conclusions about relative efficacy. While some evidence suggests potential advantages of deep approaches in midface rejuvenation, technique selection should be individualized. Future research requires standardized outcome measures and prospective comparative studies.
期刊介绍：
The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
