ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Deep Plane Versus SMAS Plication Facelift: A Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical Outcomes and Complication Rates.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFacelift surgery is a cornerstone of facial rejuvenation, yet the optimal technique remains debated. This prospective cohort study compared outcomes and complication rates between the deep plane and superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) plication facelift techniques.
methodsA total of 166 patients undergoing primary facelift surgery by a single surgeon between January 2019 and December 2024 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were allocated to the deep plane (n = 45, 27.1%) or SMAS plication (n = 121, 72.9%) groups. Data collected included demographics, operative characteristics, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, recovery duration, and complications.
resultsThe median patient age was 49 years (IQR 42.7-56), with most being female (95.2%) and overweight (46%). Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Facial rejuvenation was rated as excellent in 70.5% of SMAS cases versus 29.5% of deep plane cases (p = 0.67). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups (p = 0.09), and recovery duration was similar (median 25.5 vs. 30 days, p = 0.65). Overall complication rates did not differ significantly (21.6% vs. 28.7%, p = 0.39), including transient facial nerve weakness (11.1% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.70). Concurrent ancillary procedures were similarly distributed between groups (93.3% vs. 95.9%, p = 0.79). Logistic regression identified no significant predictors of outcome or interaction effects.
conclusionsDeep plane and SMAS plication facelifts demonstrated comparable early postoperative outcomes with no significant differences in patient satisfaction, rejuvenation ratings, recovery, or complication rates within a median follow-up of three months. These findings should be interpreted in the context of short-term follow-up, unequal group sizes, and the absence of validated outcome instruments. Both techniques appear safe and effective in the early postoperative period, with results largely influenced by surgical expertise and patient selection rather than technique alone 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
Identifiers
42384060What 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.