Deep-Plane Face-lift vs Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Plication Face-lift

A Comparative Study

Becker, Ferdinand F. MD
Bassichis, Benjamin A. MD

From the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine at Gainesville (Dr Becker); the Advanced Facial Cosmetic and Laser Surgery Center, Vero Beach, Fla (Dr Becker); and the Division of Facial Plastic Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago (Dr Bassichis).

Corresponding author and reprints: Ferdinand F. Becker, MD, Advanced Facial Cosmetic and Laser Surgery Center, 5070 Highway A1A, Suite A, Vero Beach, FL 32969-1229 (e-mail: [email protected]).

We thank the following surgeons for their participation in this study: Edward H. Farrior, MD, Tampa, Fla; Michael J. Sullivan, MD, Columbus, Ohio; Stephen W. Perkins, MD, Indianapolis, Ind; and J. Regan Thomas, MD, Chicago. In addition, we thank the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, for assistance with the imaging preparation for this article.

Accepted for publication May 13, 2003.

Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 6(1):p 8-13, January-February 2004.

Objective

To evaluate deep-plane face-lift vs superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) plication face-lift in correcting the melolabial fold, jowl, and cheek areas of the face in short-term follow-up.

Design

Masked, randomized review by 4 board-certified facial plastic surgeons experienced in rhytidectomy of full-face (frontal, oblique, and lateral views) before-and-after photographs of 20 patients who underwent deep-plane face-lift and 20 who underwent SMAS plication face-lift. Participants rated the melolabial fold, jowl, and cheek areas for overall correction of the deformities pertaining to the aesthetic results for deep-plane vs SMAS plication face-lift. Categories were excellent, good, average, acceptable, and poor.

Results

Three categories of results were determined: best, average, and poorest. Overall, SMAS plication face-lifts scored higher than deep-plane face-lifts. In the best category, there were more SMAS plication face-lifts. In the average category, there were more deep-plane face-lifts. In the poorest category, there were equal numbers of deep-plane and SMAS face-lifts. Patients were divided into the following age groups: 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 80 years. In the 2 younger groups, SMAS face-lifts scored higher than deep-plane face-lifts. In the oldest group, deep-plane face-lifts scored slightly higher than SMAS face-lifts.

Conclusion

Deep-plane face-lift does not seem to offer superior results over SMAS plication face-lift in patients younger than 70 years.