深层平面与SMAS面部提升术：系统评价与Meta分析

The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Khoury Sami, Almubarak Zaid, Khan Halema, Boldt Gabriel, Villemure-Poliquin Noémie, Nichols Anthony C

机构信息

Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, London Health Science Centre, Victoria Hospital, University of Western Ontario, Room B3-431A, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON, Canada.

London Health Sciences Centre, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 5W9, Canada.

出版信息

Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Aug 13. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-05118-x.

DOI:10.1007/s00266-025-05118-x

PMID:40801931

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Facelifts remain one of the most common facial rejuvenation surgeries, with SMAS and deep plane techniques being the primary approaches. There is still ongoing debate regarding which method provides longer-lasting outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis comparing patient satisfaction and complications of SMAS and deep plane facelifts.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched from 2000 to 2024 for controlled trials and cohort studies following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review. The primary outcome was patient-rated overall satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included long-term (more than one year) satisfaction and any measure of adverse events.

RESULTS

We identified 2474 studies for screening with 21 studies included with 2896 patients. The deep plane had a patient satisfaction of 94.4% (95%CI 84.8, 99.7) and the SMAS 87.8% (95%CI 84.3, 91.3). The deep plane had an overall complication rate of 17.2% and the SMAS 10.3% (95%CI 6.20, 14.4) CONCLUSION: Our review shows that deep plane and SMAS facelift both provide robust and long-term outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

摘要

背景

面部提升术仍然是最常见的面部年轻化手术之一，其中SMAS和深层平面技术是主要方法。关于哪种方法能带来更持久的效果，仍存在争议。

目的

我们进行了一项系统评价和单臂荟萃分析，比较SMAS和深层平面面部提升术的患者满意度和并发症。

方法

按照PRISMA系统评价指南，检索2000年至2024年期间MEDLINE、EMBASE和科学网中的对照试验和队列研究。主要结局是患者自评的总体满意度。次要结局包括长期（超过一年）满意度和任何不良事件指标。

结果

我们筛选了2474项研究，纳入21项研究，共2896例患者。深层平面组的患者满意度为94.4%（95%CI 84.8, 99.7），SMAS组为87.8%（95%CI 84.3, 91.3）。深层平面组的总体并发症发生率为17.2%，SMAS组为10.3%（95%CI 6.20, 14.4）。结论：我们的评价表明，深层平面和SMAS面部提升术均能带来可靠的长期效果，患者满意度高。

证据水平II：本刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据水平。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或作者在线指南www.springer.com/00266。