Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2021; 37(05): 606-613
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722907
Original Research

The Multiple Rhomboid Vector Suture—Our Experience of Two Years with a Modified Suspension Approach for SMAS Plication Facelifts

Kai Kaye
1   Centre for Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Ocean Clinic Marbella, Marbella, Spain
,
Felix Paprottka
1   Centre for Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Ocean Clinic Marbella, Marbella, Spain
,
Sonja Kaestner
1   Centre for Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Ocean Clinic Marbella, Marbella, Spain
,
Phillipp Gonser 
2   Department for Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: The Multiple Rhomboid Vector Suture—Our Experience of Two Years with a Modified Suspension Approach for SMAS Plication FaceliftsFacial Plast Surg 2021; 37(05): e1-e2
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729749

Abstract

Purse string sutures in superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) plication facelifts may cause technique-related problems, such as soft tissue deformities, dimpling, and bulkiness inside and between the independent sutures. Therefore, the authors have developed a new approach named the multiple rhomboid vector (MRV) suture. A total of 103 patients (89 female, 14 male patients; median age: 57 years) received a primary rhytidectomy with the MRV SMAS plication suture in our clinic (2015–2017). Intraoperative time to perform the suture per side was recorded. Postoperative complications and dimpling and bulkiness of subcutaneous tissues were judged by three independent surgeons from 1 (= none) to 4 (= extreme) after 1 week, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. A standardized survey, the FACE-Q questionnaire, was performed to evaluate postoperative patient satisfaction. Mean time to perform the suture was 5:14 minutes per side (minimum: 3:20 minutes, maximum: 5:53 minutes; standard deviation: 0:51 minutes). During the follow-up period, four complications were detected (two cases of temporary neurapraxia of the marginal branch of the mandibular nerve {n = 2 [1.9%]} and two cases of retroauricular hematoma {n = 2 [1.9%]}). Postoperative dimpling or bulkiness of subcutaneous tissues was judged as absent. Overall patient satisfaction rate, after the surgery was performed, was measured as “very high.” The MRV suture offers a combined horizontal and vertical suspension approach, which effectively addresses the different vectors of age-related facial soft tissue descent with complication rates equal to other surgical lifting techniques. Apart from that, it may help reduce the possibility of contour irregularities, whereby it must be noted that a thorough preoperative assessment together with the patient and surgical planning is crucial to ensure realistic expectations of the surgical outcome.

Keywords

SMAS plication - facelift - rhytidectomy - interlocking rhombi - multiple rhomboid vector suture


Publication History

Article published online:
03 March 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Coleman SR, Grover R. The anatomy of the aging face: volume loss and changes in 3-dimensional topography. Aesthet Surg J 2006; 26 (1S): S4-S9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wan D, Small KH, Barton FE. Face lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (05) 676e-689e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kligman LH. Photoaging. Manifestations, prevention, and treatment. Dermatol Clin 1986; 4 (03) 517-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kruglikov I, Trujillo O, Kristen Q. et al. The facial adipose tissue: a revision. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (06) 671-682
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Truswell IV WH. Aging changes of the periorbita, cheeks, and midface. Facial Plast Surg 2013; 29 (01) 3-12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wulu JA, Spiegel JH. Is deep plane rhytidectomy superior to superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication facelift?. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (08) 1741-1742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Buchanan PJ, Mihora DC, Mast BA. Facelift practice evolution: objective implementation of new surgical techniques. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (Suppl. 06) S324-S327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pedroza F, Iñiguez-Cuadra R, Chávez-Franco L, Pedroza LF, Cordoba JGE. Rhytidoplasty: SMAS imbrication vector comparison. Facial Plast Surg 2016; 32 (06) 599-606
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ozdemir R, Kilinç H, Unlü RE, Uysal AC, Sensöz O, Baran CN. Anatomicohistologic study of the retaining ligaments of the face and use in face lift: retaining ligament correction and SMAS plication. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (04) 1134-1147 , discussion 1148–1149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Robbins LB, Brothers DB, Marshall DM. Anterior SMAS plication for the treatment of prominent nasomandibular folds and restoration of normal cheek contour. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96 (06) 1279-1287 , discussion 1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Noone RB. Suture suspension malarplasty with SMAS plication and modified SMASectomy: a simplified approach to midface lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117 (03) 792-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cárdenas-Camarena L, González LE. Multiple, combined plications of the SMAS-platysma complex: breaking down the face-aging vectors. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (04) 1093-1100 , discussion 1101–1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG. et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Int J Surg 2014; 12 (12) 1500-1524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A, Snell L, Pusic AL. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast Surg 2010; 26 (04) 303-309
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Little JW. Hiding the posterior scar in rhytidectomy: the omega incision. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104 (01) 259-272 , discussion 273–276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jansma J, Schepers RH, Vissink A. Lifting procedures in cosmetic facial surgery. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2014; 121 (10) 507-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kaye KO, Kästner S, Paprottka FJ, Gonser P. The liquid facelift: First hands-on experience with facial water jet-assisted liposuction as an additive technique for rhytidectomy - a case series of 25 patients. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (02) 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Griffin JE, Jo C. Complications after superficial plane cervicofacial rhytidectomy: a retrospective analysis of 178 consecutive facelifts and review of the literature. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65 (11) 2227-2234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chang S, Pusic A, Rohrich RJ. A systematic review of comparison of efficacy and complication rates among face-lift techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 423-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tonnard P, Verpaele A, Morrison M. MACS facelift. In: Aston SJ, Steinbrech DS, Walden JL. eds. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. New York: Saunders Elsevier; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Mustoe TA, Park E. Evidence-based medicine: face lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (05) 1206-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Baker DC, Conley J. Avoiding facial nerve injuries in rhytidectomy. Anatomical variations and pitfalls. Plast Reconstr Surg 1979; 64 (06) 781-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Roostaeian J, Rohrich RJ, Stuzin JM. Anatomical considerations to prevent facial nerve injury. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135 (05) 1318-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kaye KO, Schaller HE, Jaminet P, Gonser P. The PAVE (peeling-assisted volume-enhancing) lift: a retrospective 6-year clinical analysis of a combined approach for facial rejuvenation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (08) 1128-1133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar