Suppr超能文献

比较浅表肌肉腱膜系统和深层平面面部提升技术的安全性和有效性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System and Deep Plane Facelift Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

作者信息

Vayalapra Sushanth, Guerero Daniel N, Sandhu Vinesh, Happy Armand Ak, Imantalab Delaram, Kissoonsingh Priyanka, Khajuria Ankur

机构信息

From the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Ann Plast Surg. 2025 Jul 15. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004454.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Facelift surgery (rhytidectomy) addresses skin laxity, soft tissue descent, and volume loss, with techniques such as the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) and deep plane facelifts offering distinct advantages. However, the optimal technique remains debated due to differences in complication rates and aesthetic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare complication rates and aesthetic outcomes of modern facelift techniques.

METHODS

A systematic search of databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and LILACS, was conducted up to May 2024. Eligible studies reported on SMAS or deep technique facelifts with outcomes such as complication rates, aesthetic results, and patient satisfaction. Studies included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series with more than 10 patients. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool complication rates.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies involving 10,766 patients were included. Hematoma rates were 3% for deep technique facelifts and 2% for SMAS facelifts. Infection rates were low for both techniques. Nerve injury rates were similar between groups; most reported nerve injuries were temporary and resolved over time, while permanent nerve injury was rare. Aesthetic outcomes showed significant improvements with both techniques; however, only one study directly compared them, finding superior midface rejuvenation with deep technique facelifts.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SMAS and deep techniques demonstrate comparable safety profiles, although limited comparative data and heterogeneous outcome measures preclude definitive conclusions about relative efficacy. While some evidence suggests potential advantages of deep approaches in midface rejuvenation, technique selection should be individualized. Future research requires standardized outcome measures and prospective comparative studies.

摘要

背景

面部提升手术(除皱术)可解决皮肤松弛、软组织下垂和容量丧失问题,诸如表浅肌肉腱膜系统(SMAS)和深层平面面部提升等技术具有明显优势。然而,由于并发症发生率和美学效果存在差异,最佳技术仍存在争议。

目的

本研究旨在比较现代面部提升技术的并发症发生率和美学效果。

方法

截至2024年5月,对包括MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、CINAHL和LILACS在内的数据库进行了系统检索。符合条件的研究报告了SMAS或深层技术面部提升的结果,如并发症发生率、美学效果和患者满意度。研究包括随机对照试验、队列研究和患者超过10例的病例系列。采用随机效应荟萃分析汇总并发症发生率。

结果

共纳入47项研究,涉及10766例患者。深层技术面部提升的血肿发生率为3%,SMAS面部提升为2%。两种技术的感染率均较低。两组间神经损伤率相似;大多数报告的神经损伤为暂时性,随时间推移可恢复,永久性神经损伤罕见。两种技术的美学效果均有显著改善;然而,只有一项研究直接比较了它们,发现深层技术面部提升在中面部年轻化方面更具优势。

结论

SMAS和深层技术均显示出相当的安全性,尽管有限的比较数据和异质的结局指标妨碍了对相对疗效得出明确结论。虽然一些证据表明深层方法在中面部年轻化方面可能具有优势,但技术选择应个体化。未来的研究需要标准化的结局指标和前瞻性比较研究。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验