ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
The Outcome of 3 Various Reconstructive Procedures After Permanent Filler Removal and Deep Plane Face Lift.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deep plane face lift in patients with previous permanent filler injections is a formidable reconstructive and aesthetic procedure. Various reconstructive techniques have been previously described in the literature to address the defects after removal of permanent fillers. However, no comparative study in the literature has been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness and complications of these reconstructive procedures in the pursuit of achieving aesthetically favorable results with safe techniques. The study aimed to describe the effectiveness and complications of 3 reconstructive techniques: micro-fat grafting, dermal fat grafting, and pedicled flap reconstruction. Methods: A multiarm, randomized, parallel study was conducted among patients who had undergone permanent filler injections between 2014 and 2022. Patients were divided randomly into 3 groups, each comprising 160 individuals; all patients were managed by removal of the permanent fillers, deep plane face lift, and reconstruction of the defects as a consequence of the filler removal. Participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups. This allocation was based on the defect reconstruction method, including dermofat grafting (group A), fat grafting (group B), and a pedicled buccal fat pad flap (group C). The minimum follow-up was 6 months. Results: The most prevalent complications detected were contour irregularity. Fat graft surgery was associated with the highest rates of complications. Conclusions: The pedicled flap technique had the fewest postoperative complications and was superior to fat and dermal fat graft techniques. The results could guide surgeons in optimizing patient selection and surgical techniques to improve patient outcomes.
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.