ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
Clinical Evaluation of 225 Sub-SMAS Facelifts with No Temporal Incision.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Relapse After Facelift.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Mitigating facial nerve injury risks in aesthetic surgery: A narrative review of surgical practices and anatomicsal challenges.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Evolution of Superficial Muscular Aponeurotic System Facelift Techniques: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Complications and Outcomes.JPRAS open · 2024Review
- Photographic Comparison of Malar Projection in 100 Facelift Patients Treated with and without Fat Injection.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite their name, "short scar" procedures leave scars in the temples and the postauricular scar often requires extension. Redraping the orbicularis muscle for periorbital rejuvenation increases the risk of facial nerve injury. This retrospective cohort study was undertaken to clinically evaluate a surgical approach that eliminates the temporal incision.
methodsA sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) facelift was used, incorporating a triple-vector platysmaplasty and fat injection for periorbital rejuvenation. From 2009 to 2019, 225 consecutive outpatients underwent a sub-SMAS facelift with a triple-vector (superior, lateral, medial) platysmaplasty, either alone or in combination with fat injection, laser resurfacing, blepharoplasties, endoscopic forehead lift, and other cosmetic procedures. Release of the retaining ligaments optimized SMAS mobilization. A temporal incision was not used. Fat (mean volume 32 ml) was injected into the undissected subcutaneous tissue plane. The mean follow-up time was 28 months.
resultsThe most frequent complication was a neuropraxia (7.6%), usually affecting a frontal nerve branch, and always temporary. Two deep venous thromboses were detected by ultrasound surveillance. No significant correlation was detected between complications and age, sex, body mass index, smoking history, or a previous facelift. Sixteen patients (7%) returned for a secondary facelift (mean interval, 3.5 years).
conclusionsA sub-SMAS facelift and triple-vector platysmaplasty with fat injection combine effective neckline rejuvenation with facial volume restoration. Avoiding a temporal incision eliminates a telltale scar. Orbicularis preservation avoids additional dissection, possibly reducing the risk of neuropraxia. Fat injection provides a net increase in facial volume. Long-term measurement studies are recommended.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.