ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Surgical Correction of the Nasolabial Fold: A Critical Review of Rhytidectomy Techniques.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nasolabial fold (NLF) effacement for facial rejuvenation has received a great deal of attention but is still one of the unconquered areas in surgical rhytidectomy. The current review aims to analyze the evidence provided by various surgical face lift techniques related to the long-term correction of NLFs and midface laxity. Methods: A comprehensive PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) search of the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for face rejuvenation cohort and comparative studies published in the English-language literature from 2000 through September 2025 was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines. Results: Sixteen reports were selected for review. They were characterized by extremely variable surgical techniques in terms of dissection plane and extent, together with different vectors of lift and suture fixation, as well as heterogeneous measuring tools and follow-up periods. Conclusions: Objective data to support a specific face lift technique that results in optimal long-term effacement of the NLF are lacking. Despite conflicting reports, it seems that the effect of extended sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) and deep-plane techniques has been limited due to the absence or attenuation of the SMAS layer deep to the melo fat pad. The effect of superficial SMAS imbrication may be more favorable. In view of the deeper understanding of midface anatomy and the relationship of fascial planes to one another, there is a need for critical research on the proposed facial rejuvenation techniques, several of which may need to be reconsidered.
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.