ReviewCureus2024
A Systematic Review and Comparative Analysis of Reconstructive Rhytidectomy: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Patient Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Patient Education and Concerns Following Facelift Surgery: A Study on ChatGPT-4 and Gemini.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative safety and efficacy of SMAS rhytidectomy techniques: a network meta-analysis protocol.International journal of surgery protocols · 2025Article
- Management and outcomes of facial nerve injury following rhytidectomy: a systematic review.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2025Review
- 22 years of Minimal Incision Vertical Endoscopic Lift: a journey in endoscopic facial rejuvenation.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reconstructive rhytidectomy, commonly known as facelift surgery, is a prominent cosmetic procedure aimed at rejuvenating facial appearance by addressing signs of aging. This paper critically evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of various surgical techniques involved in rhytidectomy, including the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS), deep plane facelift, and subperiosteal approaches. This systematic review of recent literature highlights key outcomes such as scar quality, postoperative pain management, and patient satisfaction. While the techniques demonstrate significant improvements in aesthetic results and patient quality of life, they also present risks including complications, dissatisfaction with outcomes, and the financial burden of surgery. Future directions indicate a trend toward minimally invasive approaches, integration of regenerative medicine, and personalized surgical planning, aiming to optimize results and minimize risks.
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.