ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Comparative Vector Analysis in Deep Plane Rhytidectomy: Evaluating Combined Horizontal and Oblique SMAS Fixation Strategies in Face and Neck Lifting.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeep plane rhytidectomy provides effective rejuvenation by repositioning surgical superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS). However, the optimal vector strategy for facial and cervical fixation remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the aesthetic outcomes of four combined SMAS fixation vector strategies-horizontal and oblique-in face and neck lifting using FACE-Q and WSRS analyses.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted on 80 patients who underwent deep plane rhytidectomy between September 2022 and April 2024. The patients were equally divided into four groups: facelift with horizontal and neck lift with horizontal fixation (Group A), facelift with horizontal and neck lift with oblique fixation (Group B), facelift with oblique and neck lift with oblique fixation (Group C), and facelift with oblique and neck lift with horizontal fixation (Group D). All procedures followed a standardized deep plane approach, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated at 6 months using the FACE-Q questionnaire and the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS). Statistical comparisons were performed with one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD post-hoc test, with a p value < 0.05 considered significant.
resultsGroup D (face-oblique + neck-horizontal) demonstrated significantly higher FACE-Q scores (88.4 ± 3.9) and greater WSRS improvement (mean reduction 2.4 ± 0.6 points) compared to Groups A, B, and C (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed among Groups A-C for either FACE-Q or WSRS. No major complications occurred.
conclusionA differential vector approach-oblique fixation for the face and horizontal fixation for the neck-yields superior patient satisfaction and wrinkle severity reduction. Combining FACE-Q and WSRS outcomes confirms that tailored vector planning by anatomical region optimizes both subjective and objective results in deep plane rhytidectomy. 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
42864533What 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.