SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Revision Neck Lift Surgery: A Systematic Review of Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRevision neck lift is among the most technically demanding facial rejuvenation procedures and often addresses complex deformities related to aging, prior operations, or inadequate management of deep neck structures. Evidence remains sparse and heterogeneous.
methodsA systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251110148). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched without time restrictions. Studies reporting ≥5 patients who underwent revision neck lift were included. Data on demographics, indications, techniques, follow-up, and complications were extracted, and owing to heterogeneity and small sample sizes, results were synthesized descriptively.
resultsFive retrospective series comprising 188 revision neck lift cases met the inclusion criteria. Among patients with reported sex, 95% were women, with reported ages between 31 and 77 years. Recurrent platysmal banding, persistent submental fullness, and submandibular gland (SMG) ptosis were the most frequently cited indications. Platysmal maneuvers were the most commonly reported revision interventions, although technique subtypes and denominators were inconsistently reported. SMG reduction was performed in 13% of patients and detailed in only one study, limiting any inference regarding indications, efficacy, or risk. Reported complications were uncommon and mainly transient, consisting primarily of transient marginal mandibular neuropraxia and isolated hematoma; no permanent nerve deficits were noted. Given heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting of complications across studies, complications were summarized descriptively without pooling.
conclusionAvailable case series suggest potential contour improvement after revision neck lift; however, aesthetic outcomes were predominantly qualitative and surgeon-reported, and standardized objective or patient-reported measures were rarely used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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
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.