Background <p>Facelifts remain one of the most common facial rejuvenation surgeries, with SMAS and deep plane techniques being the primary approaches. There is still ongoing debate regarding which method provides longer-lasting outcomes.</p> Objective <p>We conducted a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis comparing patient satisfaction and complications of SMAS and deep plane facelifts.</p> Method <p>MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from 2000 to 2024 for controlled trials and cohort studies following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review. The primary outcome was patient-rated overall satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included long-term (more than one year) satisfaction and any measure of adverse events.</p> Results <p>We identified 2474 studies for screening with 21 studies included with 2896 patients. The deep plane had a patient satisfaction of 94.4% (95%CI 84.8, 99.7) and the SMAS 87.8% (95%CI 84.3, 91.3). The deep plane had an overall complication rate of 17.2% and the SMAS 10.3% (95%CI 6.20, 14.4)</p> Conclusion <p>Our review shows that deep plane and SMAS facelift both provide robust and long-term outcomes with high patient satisfaction.</p> Level of Evidence II <p>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 <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a></p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Sami Khoury,
  • Zaid Almubarak,
  • Halema Khan,
  • Gabriel Boldt,
  • Noémie Villemure-Poliquin,
  • Anthony C. Nichols

摘要

Background

Facelifts remain one of the most common facial rejuvenation surgeries, with SMAS and deep plane techniques being the primary approaches. There is still ongoing debate regarding which method provides longer-lasting outcomes.

Objective

We conducted a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis comparing patient satisfaction and complications of SMAS and deep plane facelifts.

Method

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from 2000 to 2024 for controlled trials and cohort studies following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review. The primary outcome was patient-rated overall satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included long-term (more than one year) satisfaction and any measure of adverse events.

Results

We identified 2474 studies for screening with 21 studies included with 2896 patients. The deep plane had a patient satisfaction of 94.4% (95%CI 84.8, 99.7) and the SMAS 87.8% (95%CI 84.3, 91.3). The deep plane had an overall complication rate of 17.2% and the SMAS 10.3% (95%CI 6.20, 14.4)

Conclusion

Our review shows that deep plane and SMAS facelift both provide robust and long-term outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

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