PDF herunterladen
Facial Plast Surg 2011; 27(1): 124-132
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1270426
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Contemporary Deep Plane Rhytidectomy

Jonathan M. Sykes1 , Jonathan Liang1 , Ji-Eon Kim1
  • 1Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California–Davis, Sacramento, California
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
18. Januar 2011 (online)

    Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Many face-lift variations have been described including short skin flap, long skin flap, superficial musculoaponeurotic system flap, deep plane, composite flap, and subperiosteal face-lifts. Each technique offers its set of advantages and disadvantages. Theoretical benefits include a more optimal treatment of the midface, nasolabial fold, and periorbital area. A review of the literature highlights some of the potential advantages of the deep plane face-lift and the difficulty in objectively comparing the various techniques.

KEYWORDS

Deep plane - face-lift - rhytidectomy - SMAS - composite face-lift

REFERENCES

  • 1 Fomon S. The Surgery of Injury and Plastic Repair. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1939: 1344
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Skoog T. Plastic Surgery: New Methods and Refinements. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1974
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Mitz V, Peyronie M. The superficial musculo-aponeurotic system (SMAS) in the parotid and cheek area.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976;  58 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hamra S T. The deep-plane rhytidectomy.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;  86 53-61 discussion 62-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Baker S R. Deep plane rhytidectomy and variations.  Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2009;  17 557-573, vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kridel R WH, Soliemanzadeh P. The aging face (rhytidectomy). In: Bailey B J, Johnson J T, Newlands S H, et al, eds. Head & Neck Surgery – Otolaryngology. Vol. 2. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006: 2627-2650
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Hamra S T. Composite rhytidectomy.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;  90 1-13
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Carniol P J, Ganc D T. Is there an ideal facelift procedure?.  Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;  15 244-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Adamson P A, Dahiya R, Litner J. Midface effects of the deep-plane vs the superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication face-lift.  Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;  9 9-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Becker F F, Bassichis B A. Deep-plane face-lift vs superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication face-lift: a comparative study.  Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2004;  6 8-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Litner J A, Adamson P A. Limited vs extended face-lift techniques: objective analysis of intraoperative results.  Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;  8 186-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kamer F M, Frankel A S. SMAS rhytidectomy versus deep plane rhytidectomy: an objective comparison.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;  102 878-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Antell D E, Orseck M J. A comparison of face lift techniques in eight consecutive sets of identical twins.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;  120 1667-1673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kamer F M, Song A U. Hematoma formation in deep plane rhytidectomy.  Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2000;  2 240-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Zoumalan R, Rizk S S. Hematoma rates in drainless deep-plane face-lift surgery with and without the use of fibrin glue.  Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2008;  10 103-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Jonathan M SykesM.D. 

Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery

2521 Stockton Blvd., Suite 6206, Sacramento, CA 95817

eMail: jonathan.sykes@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu

      >