ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Hemostatic Net in Facial Aesthetic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHematoma is the most frequent and consequential complication after rhytidectomy. The hemostatic net (HN)-a temporary transcutaneous lattice anchoring the flap to the SMAS-platysma-aims to eliminate dead space and minimize shear. Earlier reviews were limited by small samples and methodological heterogeneity. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes all available evidence to quantify HN safety and efficacy in facial aesthetic surgery.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines (PROSPERO CRD420251149130), PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched through September 2025. Comparative and single-arm studies reporting hematoma, necrosis, seroma, or hyperpigmentation were included. Random-effects DerSimonian-Laird models generated pooled odds ratios (OR) and proportions with 95 % confidence intervals (CI).
resultsThirteen studies encompassing 3264 unique patients (2175 HN treated) met inclusion criteria; six were comparative. In cervicofacial rhytidectomy, HN reduced the odds of hematoma by 93% compared with drain-based closure (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; P < .0001; I
conclusionsIn cervicofacial rhytidectomy, HN was associated with lower odds of hematoma than drain-based closure, without an increase in skin necrosis. Single-arm analyses provide descriptive estimates of low absolute complication rates, including in gliding brow lift, but do not establish comparative effectiveness outside rhytidectomy. Pigmentary change at suture entry sites is the most frequent visible adverse event and, although usually self-limited, may take up to three months to resolve and warrants explicit preoperative counseling. Evidence derives predominantly from non-randomized studies, and pooled estimates should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating. 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 https://www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886227What 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.