medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2021, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2021; 31 (1)

Surgical anatomical differences of SMAS supra-high rhytidectomy vs rhytidectomy with plication of the SMAS in three vectors

De-Rungs-Brown DR, Manzo-Hernández M, Zamora-Madrazo A, Martínez-Guzmán A, Alegre-Tamez E

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 4-17
PDF size: 637.59 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Descriptions have been provided for multiple rhytidectomy techniques, some with greater manipulation of the tissues and; therefore, longer surgical time, slower recovery and greater probability of complications related to the procedure. We describe the pathological anatomy of two widely used rhytidectomy techniques: supra-high SMAS and SMAS plication. Next, we compare aesthetic satisfaction retrospectively, intraoperative duration, speed of recovery, and probability of related complications during follow-up. We carried out a retrospective, comparative, observational longitudinal study in 19 cases of SMAS plication and 20 supra-high SMAS controls. The homogenization of the data was analyzed with the χ2 and Fisher tests, and we used the Odds Ratio (OR, 95% CI) as a measure of association between the surgical technique used and the probability of having complications. There was no statistically significant difference between the technique used and the probability of presenting an aesthetic satisfaction ≥ 80%, OR = 0.93 (95% CI, 0.22-1.42). There was also no statistically significant difference between the technique used and the probability of not having postoperative complications, OR = 2.13 (95% CI, 0.34-13.24). Both the supra-high SMAS rhytidectomy and SMAS plication are previously known and widely used rhytidectomy techniques. There are no significant differences in terms of aesthetic satisfaction or in the probability of having complications; however, the patients with SMAS plication were operated in a shorter time and recovered more quickly.


REFERENCES

  1. Skoog T. Plastic surgery: new methods and refinements. Philadelphia: Saunders 1974, p. 16.

  2. Stuzin JM, Baker TJ, Gordon HL. The relationship of the superficial and deep facial fascia: relevance to rhytidectomy and aging. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89: 441.

  3. Stuzin JM. MOC-PSSM CME article: Face lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (Suppl): 1-19.

  4. Tonnard P, Verpaele A, Monstrey S et al. Minimal access cranial suspension lift: a modified S-lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109: 2074-2086.

  5. Stuzin JM. Restoring facial shape in face lifting: The role of skeletal support in facial analysis and midface soft-tissue repositioning. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119: 362-376; discussion 377-378.

  6. Rohrich RJ, Ghavami A, Constantine FC, Unger J, Mojallal A. Lift-and-fill face lift: Integrating the fat compartments. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133: 756e-767e.

  7. Pitanguy I, Machado BH. Facial rejuvenation surgery: A retrospective study of 8788 cases. Aesthet Surg J 2012; 32: 393-412.

  8. Marten TJ. High SMAS facelift: combined single flap lifting of the jawline, cheek, and midface. Clin Plast Surg 2008; 35: 569-603, vi.

  9. Baker DC. Lateral SMASectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 100: 509-513.

  10. Marten TJ, editor. Facelift-state of the art. Seminars in plastic surgery. New York: Thieme Medical Publishing 2002.

  11. Gamble WB, Manson PN, Smith GE, Hamra ST. Comparison of skin-tissue tensions using the composite and the subcutaneous rhytidectomy techniques. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 35: 447-453; discussion 453-444.

  12. Becker FF, Bassichis BA. Deep-plane face-lift vs superficial muscle aponeurotic system plication face-lift: a comparative study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004; 6: 8-13. doi: 10.1001/archfaci.6.1.8.

  13. Mohammadi S, Ahmadi A, Salem MM et al. A comparison between two methods of face-lift surgery in nine cadavers: SMAS (superficial muscle-aponeurotic system) versus MACS (minimal access cranial suspension). Aesthet Plast Surg 2015; 39: 680-685. doi: 10.1007/s00266-015-0543-3.

  14. Verpaele A, Tonnard P, Gaia S et al. The third suture in MACS-lifting: making midface-lifting simple and safe. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60: 1287-1295. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2006.12.012.

  15. Verpaele A, Tonnard P. Lower third of the face: indications and limitations of the minimal access cranial suspension lift. Clin Plast Surg 2008; 35: 645-659, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2008.04.001.

  16. Prado A, Andrades P, Danilla S et al. A clinical retrospective study comparing two short-scar face lifts: minimal access cranial suspension versus lateral SMASectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 1413-1425; discussion 1426-1417. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000207402.53411.1e.

  17. Tonnard PL, Verpaele A, Gaia S. Optimizing results from minimal access cranial suspension lifting (MACS-lift). Aesthet Plast Surg 2005; 29: 213-220; discussion 221. doi: 10.1007/s00266-005-0047-7.

  18. Mast BA. Advantages and limitations of the MACS lift for facial rejuvenation. Ann Plast Surg 2014; 72: S139-143. doi: 10.1097/sap.0000000000000092.

  19. Gordon NA, Adam SI, 3rd. Deep plane face lifting for midface rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 2015; 42: 129-142. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2014.08.009.

  20. Parikh SS, Jacono AA. Deep?plane face?lift as an alternative in the smoking patient. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011; 13: 283-285. doi: 10.1001/archfacial.2011.39.

  21. Marcus BC. Rhytidectomy: current concepts, controversies and the state of the art. Curr Op Otolaryngol head Neck Surg 2012; 20: 262-266. doi: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e328355b175.

  22. Lemmon ML. Color atlas of SMAS rhytidectomy. First ed. Michigan: Thieme Medical Publisher; 1993

  23. Stuzin JM, Baker TJ, Gordon HL, Baker TM. Extended SMAS dissection as an approach to midface rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 1995; 22: 295-311.

  24. Lindsey JT. Five year retrospective review of the extended SMAS: critical landmarks and technical refinements. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 62: 492-496. doi: 10.1097/ SAP.0b013e31818ba77d.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com