Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38283861›Full record

ReviewJPRAS open2024

Evolution of Superficial Muscular Aponeurotic System Facelift Techniques: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Complications and Outcomes.

Hatan Mortada, Najla Alkilani, Ibrahim R Halawani, Wasan Al Zaid, Rema Sultan Alkahtani, Hazem Saqr, Omar Fouda Neel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Hatan MortadaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, King Saud University Medical City, King Saud University Medical City and Department of Plastic Surgery & Burn Unit, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Najla AlkilaniKing Saud University, College of Medicine, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ibrahim R HalawaniFaculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Wasan Al ZaidCollege of Medicine, Jouf University, Al Jouf, Saudi Arabia.
Rema Sultan AlkahtaniCollege of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hazem SaqrSchool of Medicine, Newgiza University (NGU), Giza, Egypt.
Omar Fouda NeelDivision of plastic surgery, Department of Surgery, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Facelift procedures are a popular method of facial rejuvenation. The most common technique is superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) plication, with several variations. However, the optimal approach remains unclear. This review analyzed previous studies to compare SMAS facelift techniques, their outcomes, and complication rates. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar electronic databases in September 2022. The search included studies published from January 2000 to September 2022 using keywords such as "facelift," "complications," and "outcomes." Results: This review examined 27 selected studies that evaluated 6 SMAS facelift techniques. The studies involved 6086 patients in total, over 85% of who were satisfied with the outcome of their surgery. The complication rates varied depending on the technique used, with the SMAS flap and composite SMAS technique having the highest (5.75%) and lowest (0.05%) complication rates, respectively. The most common complications were temporary facial nerve injury (0.85%) and skin necrosis (0.41%). To date, only one case of permanent facial nerve injury has been reported. Conclusions: On the basis of our findings, SMAS facelift techniques achieve high patient satisfaction rates, with complication rates that vary by technique. The composite SMAS technique showed the lowest complication rates, whereas the SMAS flap showed the highest rate. However, some studies have not reported all complications, making it difficult to determine the best approach. Therefore, future studies are required to identify the most aesthetically pleasing technique with the lowest complication risk.

Indexed as

Aesthetic surgeryComplicationsFaceliftFacial nerve injurySMASTechniques

Identifiers

PMID38283861
PMCPMC10819192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.