Is the SMAS Flap Facelift Safe? A Comparison of Complications Between the Sub-SMAS Approach Versus the Subcutaneous Approach With or Without SMAS Plication in Aesthetic Rhytidectomy at an Academic Institution.

BACKGROUND: For treating the aging face, a facelift is the surgical standard. A variety of techniques have been described. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the safety of the sub-SMAS facelift compared to the subcutaneous facelift with or without SMAS plication.

METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients who underwent facelift surgery between 2003 and 2011. Patients included in the study were seeking elective improvement of facial appearance. All charts were reviewed to identify the presence of hematoma, seroma, deep venous thrombosis, skin loss, unfavorable scar, wound infection, or motor and sensory deficit following the operation. The primary outcome was overall complication rate.

RESULTS: A total of 229 facelifts were included; 143 patients underwent a subcutaneous facelift with or without SMAS plication and 86 underwent a sub-SMAS facelift. For the subcutaneous facelifts, 88% of the patients were female with a mean age of 62 years. For the sub-SMAS dissections, 88% of the patients were female with a mean age of 59 years. The overall complication rate was 29.4% (n = 42) for patients who underwent a subcutaneous facelift compared to 24.4% (n = 21) for patients with a sub-SMAS facelift (p = 0.4123). Analysis of each individual complication failed to yield any statistically significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, sub-SMAS facelift complication rates were not statistically different compared to those of subcutaneous facelift with or without SMAS plication. These data suggest that sub-SMAS dissection can be performed with similar safety compared to the traditional subcutaneous facelift, with the potential additional advantage of the SMAS flap elevation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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.