Deep plane rhytidectomy: A personal evolution

Kamer, Frank M.; Mingrone, Matthew D.

doi:10.1016/s1064-7406(03)00083-x

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In those patients, furthermore, the lateral staking of soft tissue may indeed be an advantage. [40][41][42] To move the SMAS flap with imbrication, as we know, it is necessary to first make an incision through the one that can carry out the undermining. For a long time, we made the SMAS incision rather anteriorly (4 cm in front of the cutaneous incision), and we were convinced that the more the traction was applied near the Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facelift 2015

Botti

2015

Facial plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the current topics, one that is more commonly discussed is that of the mini-invasive or ?soft? techniques that seem to attract doctors and patients more than real surgery. We instead propose a relatively aggressive technique that can really rejuvenate the faces and necks of our patients. Are we not in step with the times? The problem is, unfortunately, that until now there is nothing that, without anesthesia, swelling, bruising, and so forth, can magically bring about the result of a well-done facelift. There are no ?thread lifts? or fillings or endopeels or weird devices using radiofrequency, ultrasound, or shock waves?the list could go on forever?that can compare with a properly performed facelift. But how should a good facelift be done? For many years, we have been using the protocol described in this article, and the request for facelifts has not dropped, despite never having used advertising in our practice. We want to give our patients natural and long-lasting results, and for this purpose we must use an effective and individualized technique, even if it implies a relatively long down time. In this article, we describe the technical choices that we have made based on a long clinical experience and on detailed anatomical studies. Most difficulties that are encountered with this type of surgery concern finding the proper dissection plane and the proper amount of traction to be applied to the different tissue layers. It is indeed not at all easy, especially for a beginner, to be sure that one has reached the proper depth of dissection, which will allow the elevation of the superficial musculo-aponeurotic system (SMAS) in a risk-free manner even in the area which is medial to the anterior border of the parotid gland where the facial nerve is no longer protected by the gland itself. We will nevertheless try to provide precise indications concerning every important detail needed to perform the operation safely.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facelift 2015

Botti

2015

Facial plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The deep-plane face-lift has certainly shown many advantages both in the degree and the duration of improvement. [17][18][19][20][21][22] The midface effects of this lift have been debated. [23][24][25][26][27] When Hamra 18 first described his large series of deep-plane face-lifts in 1990, he specifically noted the improvement in the melolabial or nasolabial fold.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since then, others have also noted some midface improvement with the deep-plane face-lift. [1][2][3][17][18][19][20] Many of these previous accounts have been based on subjective analysis. The goal of our study was to determine if there is any objective support for these observations in the midface.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LTHOUGH THE BEST WAY TO perform a face-lift has always been, and continues to be, a matter of debate, there is even greater controversy when it comes to the best way to address the midface. [1][2][3] The midface is commonly defined as that part of the face that begins below the orbital rim and extends to the melolabial fold, including the area as far posterior as the malar prominence. Although "traditional" face-lifting techniques can achieve an excellent improvement along the jawline and neck, they often have little or no impact on the area of the midface.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Midface Effects of the Deep-Plane vs the Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Plication Face-lift

Adamson

Dahiya

Litner

2007

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine if there is any observable difference in the midface of patients who have undergone a deep-plane face-lift vs a standard superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) plication face-lift. Design: Preoperative and postoperative photographs of 25 patients undergoing each type of face-lift were rated by 3 independent and blinded observers. A 7-point scale was used to grade improvement in 5 areas on the face and neck: malar eminence, melolabial fold, jowls, cervicomental angle, and anterior neck banding. Results: All 3 independent observers rated the patients who underwent a deep-plane face-lift as having a significantly better result (PϽ.01) in 2 of the measured locations; the observed improvements in the deep-plane group were twice those in the SMAS plication group. Conclusion: In our study of 50 patients, the deepplane face-lift proved to have results that were clinically and statistically better than those of the SMASapplication face-lift in both the midface and the neck.

show abstract

“…The best way to perform a facelift is a matter of debate, and there is even greater controversy when it comes to the best way to address the midface. [ 1 2 3 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Midface-lift patient satisfaction: A 5-year follow-up study

Pascali

Quarato

Bocchini

et al. 2016

Indian J Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:Several studies showed, from the clinical point of view, the advantages of the various techniques and surgical approaches to obtain facial rejuvenation. A few studies have highlighted the satisfaction or not of patients who underwent a traditional facelift; however, a long-term follow-up study measuring patient satisfaction with midface-lift surgery has not been published yet.Aims:The aim of this study is to measure individual patient satisfaction with the midface lift, to find out from each patient his/her level of satisfaction 1 and 5 years after the operation and to compare the results to assess the benefits of the surgery.Background:Several studies showed, from a clinical point of view, the advantages of the various techniques and surgical approaches to obtain facial rejuvenation; however, a long-term follow-up study measuring patient satisfaction with midface-lift surgery has not been published yet.Materials and Methods:Between January 2005 and January 2010, 163 patients underwent a midface lift. All patients were asked to complete a standardised survey 1 and 5 years after surgery, in order to measure outcomes among facial aesthetic patients.Statistical Analysis Used:The paired t-test.Results:All patients reported an improvement as a result of the midface lift. Statistically significant differences in judgement criteria were found for malar eminence and nasojugal groove. Almost all of the patients turned out to be completely satisfied with their appearance with the new look.Conclusions:Patients were extremely satisfied with their decision to undergo a midface lift and with the outcomes and quality of life following the procedure.

show abstract

Deep plane rhytidectomy: A personal evolution

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Facelift 2015

Facelift 2015

Midface Effects of the Deep-Plane vs the Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Plication Face-lift

Midface-lift patient satisfaction: A 5-year follow-up study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About