Comparison between Superficial and Deep Plane Facelift: Meta-Analysis Study | ||
| Zagazig University Medical Journal | ||
| Article 27, Volume 31, Issue 3, March 2025, Pages 1257-1271 PDF (1.43 M) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/zumj.2025.352792.3795 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Yehia Zakaria Awad1; Mohamed Ali Nasr1; Mohamed Nayer Ahmed El-Sayed* 2 | ||
| 1Professor of plastic, Reconstructive, Hand and Microsurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt | ||
| 2Department of plastic and reconstructive surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Egypt | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: The rejuvenation of the face through surgical means remains one of the fundamental aspects of aesthetic practices and facelift surgeries rank first in popularity among them. It has been over the years that due to the advancements in surgical techniques, several approaches to the management of facial aging has come about. The goal of this meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive comparison between the superficial and deep plane facelift techniques by synthesizing data from available studies. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to identify relevant studies comparing superficial and deep plane facelift techniques. Our search encompassed the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library, by using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to facelift techniques. Two reviewers independently carried out data extraction with regard to study characteristics, patient demographics, surgical technique details and reported outcomes with a follow-up period of at least six months to ensure sufficient postoperative data. Results: a total of 404 studies, 9 studies were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Success rates for both techniques were high, with the SMAS technique showing a slightly higher success rate of 93.73% compared to 92.42% for the deep plane technique. Complications were more common in the deep plane facelift group, which had an overall complication rate of 12.12%, compared to just 4.18% in the SMAS group. Conclusion: Ultimately, both techniques are effective but carry distinct risk profiles. Patient-specific factors, surgeon expertise, and individualized surgical planning are essential in determining the optimal technique. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Facelift surgery; Superficial facelift; Deep plane facelift; Meta-analysis | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 14,007 PDF Download: 1,034 |
||
