Enes Agah Kodalak, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Mert Ersan, Fahriye Büşra Genç, Victoria Zecchin Ferrara, Krishna S Vyas
{"title":"Hemostatic Net in Facial Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Enes Agah Kodalak, Lucas Monteiro Delgado, Mert Ersan, Fahriye Büşra Genç, Victoria Zecchin Ferrara, Krishna S Vyas","doi":"10.1007/s00266-026-06335-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Hematoma is the most frequent and consequential complication after rhytidectomy. The hemostatic net (HN)-a temporary transcutaneous lattice anchoring the flap to the SMAS-platysma-aims to eliminate dead space and minimize shear. Earlier reviews were limited by small samples and methodological heterogeneity. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes all available evidence to quantify HN safety and efficacy in facial aesthetic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251149130), PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched through September 2025. Comparative and single-arm studies reporting hematoma, necrosis, seroma, or hyperpigmentation were included. Random-effects DerSimonian-Laird models generated pooled odds ratios (OR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen studies encompassing 3264 unique patients (2175 HN treated) met inclusion criteria; six were comparative. In cervicofacial rhytidectomy, HN reduced the odds of hematoma by 93% compared with drain-based closure (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; P < .0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 25%). No difference in necrosis was observed (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.20-2.63; P = .63; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Single-arm pooled rates were hematoma 1.09%, seroma 1.66%, necrosis 0.96%, and persistent hyperpigmentation 0.28%; these are descriptive estimates of incidence and do not support comparative inference. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In cervicofacial rhytidectomy, HN was associated with lower odds of hematoma than drain-based closure, without an increase in skin necrosis. Single-arm analyses provide descriptive estimates of low absolute complication rates, including in gliding brow lift, but do not establish comparative effectiveness outside rhytidectomy. Pigmentary change at suture entry sites is the most frequent visible adverse event and, although usually self-limited, may take up to three months to resolve and warrants explicit preoperative counseling. Evidence derives predominantly from non-randomized studies, and pooled estimates should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence ii: </strong>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://www.springer.com/00266 .</p>","PeriodicalId":7609,"journal":{"name":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aesthetic Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-026-06335-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Hematoma is the most frequent and consequential complication after rhytidectomy. The hemostatic net (HN)-a temporary transcutaneous lattice anchoring the flap to the SMAS-platysma-aims to eliminate dead space and minimize shear. Earlier reviews were limited by small samples and methodological heterogeneity. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes all available evidence to quantify HN safety and efficacy in facial aesthetic surgery.
Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251149130), PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched through September 2025. Comparative and single-arm studies reporting hematoma, necrosis, seroma, or hyperpigmentation were included. Random-effects DerSimonian-Laird models generated pooled odds ratios (OR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).
Results: Thirteen studies encompassing 3264 unique patients (2175 HN treated) met inclusion criteria; six were comparative. In cervicofacial rhytidectomy, HN reduced the odds of hematoma by 93% compared with drain-based closure (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; P < .0001; I2 = 25%). No difference in necrosis was observed (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.20-2.63; P = .63; I2 = 0%). Single-arm pooled rates were hematoma 1.09%, seroma 1.66%, necrosis 0.96%, and persistent hyperpigmentation 0.28%; these are descriptive estimates of incidence and do not support comparative inference. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness.
Conclusions: In cervicofacial rhytidectomy, HN was associated with lower odds of hematoma than drain-based closure, without an increase in skin necrosis. Single-arm analyses provide descriptive estimates of low absolute complication rates, including in gliding brow lift, but do not establish comparative effectiveness outside rhytidectomy. Pigmentary change at suture entry sites is the most frequent visible adverse event and, although usually self-limited, may take up to three months to resolve and warrants explicit preoperative counseling. Evidence derives predominantly from non-randomized studies, and pooled estimates should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating.
Level of evidence ii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors https://www.springer.com/00266 .
期刊介绍:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is a publication of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the official journal of the European Association of Societies of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (EASAPS), Società Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica (SICPRE), Vereinigung der Deutschen Aesthetisch Plastischen Chirurgen (VDAPC), the Romanian Aesthetic Surgery Society (RASS), Asociación Española de Cirugía Estética Plástica (AECEP), La Sociedad Argentina de Cirugía Plástica, Estética y Reparadora (SACPER), the Rhinoplasty Society of Europe (RSE), the Iranian Society of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgeons (ISPAS), the Singapore Association of Plastic Surgeons (SAPS), the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), the Egyptian Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons (ESPRS), and the Sociedad Chilena de Cirugía Plástica, Reconstructiva y Estética (SCCP).
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery provides a forum for original articles advancing the art of aesthetic plastic surgery. Many describe surgical craftsmanship; others deal with complications in surgical procedures and methods by which to treat or avoid them. Coverage includes "second thoughts" on established techniques, which might be abandoned, modified, or improved. Also included are case histories; improvements in surgical instruments, pharmaceuticals, and operating room equipment; and discussions of problems such as the role of psychosocial factors in the doctor-patient and the patient-public interrelationships.
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery is covered in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, SciSearch, Research Alert, Index Medicus-Medline, and Excerpta Medica/Embase.