Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40801931›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025

The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sami Khoury, Zaid Almubarak, Halema Khan, Gabriel Boldt, Noémie Villemure-Poliquin, Anthony C Nichols

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Sami KhouryDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, Room B3-431A, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON, Canada.
Zaid AlmubarakDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, Room B3-431A, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON, Canada.
Halema KhanDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, Room B3-431A, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON, Canada.
Gabriel BoldtLondon Health Sciences Centre, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada.
Noémie Villemure-PoliquinInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Anthony C NicholsDepartment of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, Room B3-431A, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON, Canada. anthony.nichols@lhsc.on.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-0760-980X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFacelifts remain one of the most common facial rejuvenation surgeries, with SMAS and deep plane techniques being the primary approaches. There is still ongoing debate regarding which method provides longer-lasting outcomes.

objectiveWe conducted a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis comparing patient satisfaction and complications of SMAS and deep plane facelifts.

methodMEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from 2000 to 2024 for controlled trials and cohort studies following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review. The primary outcome was patient-rated overall satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included long-term (more than one year) satisfaction and any measure of adverse events.

resultsWe identified 2474 studies for screening with 21 studies included with 2896 patients. The deep plane had a patient satisfaction of 94.4% (95%CI 84.8, 99.7) and the SMAS 87.8% (95%CI 84.3, 91.3). The deep plane had an overall complication rate of 17.2% and the SMAS 10.3% (95%CI 6.20, 14.4)

conclusionOur review shows that deep plane and SMAS facelift both provide robust and long-term outcomes with high patient satisfaction. 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 www.springer.com/00266.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionRejuvenationRhytidoplastySkin AgingFemaleHumansMaleTreatment OutcomeComplicationsDeep planeFaceliftPatient satisfactionRhytidectomySMAS

Identifiers

PMID40801931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.