SMAS Flap Rhytidectomy

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon-Paul Pepper ◽  
Shan R. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Smas Flap

A Meta-Analysis of Complication Rates Among Different SMAS Facelift Techniques

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 927-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew A Jacono ◽  
A Sean Alemi ◽  
Joseph L Russell
Keyword(s):  
Facial Nerve ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Facial Nerve Injury ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Smas Flap

AbstractBackgroundSub-superficial musculo-aponeurotic system (SMAS) rhytidectomy techniques are considered to have a higher complication profile, especially for facial nerve injury, compared with less invasive SMAS techniques. This results in surgeons avoiding sub-SMAS dissection.ObjectivesThe authors sought to aggregate and summarize data on complications among different SMAS facelift techniques.MethodsA broad systematic search was performed. All included studies: (1) described a SMAS facelifting technique categorized as SMAS plication, SMASectomy/imbrication, SMAS flap, high lateral SMAS flap, deep plane, and composite; and (2) reported the number of postoperative complications in participants. Meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsA total 183 studies were included. High lateral SMAS (1.85%) and composite rhytidectomy (1.52%) had the highest rates of temporary nerve injury and were the only techniques to show a statistically significant difference compared with SMAS plication (odds ratio [OR] = 2.71 and 2.22, respectively, P < 0.05). Risk of permanent injury did not differ among techniques. An increase in major hematoma was found for the deep plane (1.22%, OR = 1.67, P < 0.05) and SMAS imbrication (1.92%, OR = 2.65, P < 0.01). Skin necrosis was higher with the SMAS flap (1.57%, OR = 2.29, P < 0.01).ConclusionsThere are statistically significant differences in complication rates between SMAS facelifting techniques for temporary facial nerve injury, hematoma, seroma, necrosis, and infection. Technique should be selected based on quality of results and not the complication profile.Level of Evidence: 2

SMAS Flap Rhytidectomy

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-108
Author(s):  
Jon-Paul Pepper ◽  
Shan R. Baker
Keyword(s):  
Smas Flap

MIDI Face-Lift and Tricuspidal SMAS-Flap

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrije E. Panfilov
Keyword(s):  
Face Lift ◽  
Smas Flap

Is the SMAS Flap Facelift Safe? A Comparison of Complications Between the Sub-SMAS Approach Versus the Subcutaneous Approach With or Without SMAS Plication in Aesthetic Rhytidectomy at an Academic Institution

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 870-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charalambos K. Rammos ◽  
Anita T. Mohan ◽  
Marco A. Maricevich ◽  
Renata L. Maricevich ◽  
Marcus J. Adair ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Academic Institution ◽  
Smas Flap
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document