ReviewJPRAS open2024
Evolution of Superficial Muscular Aponeurotic System Facelift Techniques: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Complications and Outcomes.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Forehead Length Reduction Surgery: Quantifying Complications and Outcomes Through Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Deep Plane Versus SMAS Plication Facelift: A Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes and Complication Rates.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- The Okumus Incision: A Hairline-Preserving Temporozygomatic Approach for Facelift Surgery.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparing Deep Plane and Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Facelifts Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Age Estimation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Possible Impacts of Collagen Biostimulators on Surgical Facelift.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Mitigating facial nerve injury risks in aesthetic surgery: A narrative review of surgical practices and anatomicsal challenges.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Comparative safety and efficacy of SMAS rhytidectomy techniques: a network meta-analysis protocol.International journal of surgery protocols · 2025Article
- Retaining Ligaments of the Face: Still Important in Modern Approach in Mid-Face and Neck Lift?Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Direct muscular connection between the orbicularis oculi and risorius muscles: a case report.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2025Article
- Combining Deep Plane Face and Neck Lift with Periorbital Rejuvenation and Ancillary Surgical Procedures of the Face: A Critical Evaluation of Over 434 Consecutive Cases.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- The Facial Rejuvenation Enhancing Cheek Lift (FRENCH LIFT), a Facelift Technique that Treats Sagging of the Anterior Column of the Face: A Single Surgeon's 10-year Experience with 1100 Operated Patients.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Safety and Outcomes in Multiplane Facial Rejuvenation with Tranexamic Acid: A Cohort Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.