“R” face and neck lift: a modified technique for en-bloc facial rejuvenation

Abstract

Aim: We developed R lift, a modified en-bloc facelift, in response to growing demand for long-lasting, effective facelift procedures associated with minimal downtime and a low risk of complications. Conventional facelift procedures can be invasive, involve long recovery times, and can be disfiguring in the early postoperative period. However, nonsurgical modalities for facelift tend to yield a weaker, less noticeable lift and may require earlier revision.

Methods: Eighty-five patients who underwent R lift were evaluated retrospectively. Minor and major complications and the need for any revisions were recorded.

Results: Patients received follow-up for an average of 16.3 months (range 8-48.8 months). One patient required minor revisional surgery after dental abscess and subsequent soft-tissue infection of the face. Another patient had hypertrophic scarring. No patients experienced nerve damage or other major complications.

Conclusion: R lift is indicated for patients with the spectrum of age-related concerns of the mid/lowerface and neck. This technique yields reliable harmonious results, with a low risk of complications and a short recovery period. Continued follow-up data are needed to confirm the stability of the R lift result.

Keywords

Facelift / neck lift / en-bloc facelift

References

[1] Rammos CK,Maricevich MA,Adair MJ.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..Aesthetic Plast Surg2015;39:870-6

[2] Tonnard P,Monstrey S.Minimal access cranial suspension lift: a modified S-lift..Plast Reconstr Surg2002;109:2074-86

[3] Jacono AA,Lavin TJ.Nonsurgical facial rejuvenation procedures in patients under 50 prior to undergoing facelift: habits, costs, and results..Aesthet Surg J2017;37:448-53

[4] Rollett R,Khan MA.Facelift for an ehlers-danlos syndrome patient: a case report..Aesthet Surg J2016;36:NP131-4 PMCID:PMC5127475

[5] Mast BA.Advantages and limitations of the MACS lift for facial rejuvenation..Ann Plast Surg2014;72:S139-43

[6] Jacono AA.The minimal access deep plane extended vertical facelift..Aesthet Surg J2011;31:874-90

[7] Tonnard PL,Gaia S.Optimising results from minimal access cranial suspension lifting (MACS-lift)..Aesthetic Plast Surg2005;29:213-20

[8] Mendelson BC.Surgical anatomy of the middle premasseter space and its application in sub-SMAS face lift surgery..Plast Reconstr Surg2013;132:57-64

[9] Jost G.Parotid fascia and face lifting: a critical evaluation of the SMAS concept..Plast Reconstr Surg1984;74:42-51

[10] Wassef M.Superficial fascial and muscular layers in the face and neck: a histological study..Aesthetic Plast Surg1987;11:171-6

[11] Levet Y.Comparative anatomy of cutaneous muscles of the face..Aesthetic Plast Surg1987;11:177-9

[12] Broughton M.The superficial musculoaponeurotic system of the face: a model explored..Anat Res Int2013;2013:794682 PMCID:PMC3834975

[13] Stuzin JM,Gordon HL.The relationship of the superficial and deep facial fascias: relevance to rhytidectomy and aging..Plast Reconstr Surg1992;89:441-9

[14] Fanous N.‘Optimum mobility’ facelift. Part 1-the theory..Can J Plast Surg2006;14:67-73 PMCID:PMC2585029

[15] Jacono AA,Kennedy WA.Anatomical comparison of platysmal tightening using superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication vs deep-plane rhytidectomy techniques..Arch Facial Plast Surg2011;13:395-7

[16] Lassus C.Cervicofacial rhytidectomy: the superficial plane..Aesthetic Plast Surg1997;21:25-31

[17] Ivy EJ,Aston SJ.Is there a difference? A prospective study comparing lateral and standard SMAS face lifts with extended SMAS and composite rhytidectomies..Plast Reconstr Surg1996;98:1135-43

[18] Rossell-Perry P.Anatomic study of the retaining ligaments of the face and applications for facial rejuvenation..Aesthetic Plast Surg2013;37:504-12

[19] Moss CJ,Taylor GI.Surgical anatomy of the ligamentous attachments in the temple and periorbital regions..Plast Reconstr Surg2000;105:1475-90

[20] Alghoul M.Retaining ligaments of the face: review of anatomy and clinical applications..Aesthet Surg J2013;33:769-82

[21] Huettner F,de la Torre JI.Neck rejuvenation--anatomy and clinical correlation..Facial Plast Surg2012;28:40-51

[22] O’Brien JX,Whitaker IS.Lore’s fascia and the platysma-auricular ligament are distinct structures..J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg2012;65:e241-5

[23] Baker DC.Minimal incision rhytidectomy (short scar face lift) with lateral SMASectomy..Aesthet Surg J2001;21:68-79

[24] Waterhouse N,Bulstrode NW.Modified lateral SMASectomy..Plast Reconstr Surg2007;119:1021-6

[25] Fogli A.Less invasive face-lifting: platysma anchoring techniques..Clin Plast Surg2008;35:519-29vi

[26] Jones BM.How long does a face lift last? Objective and subjective measurements over a 5-year period..Plast Reconstr Surg2012;130:1317-27

[27] Saylan Z.The S-lift: less is more..Aesthet Surg J1999;19:406-9

[28] Pfulg ME.Le soft-lifting: premier bilan [Soft-lifting: initial results]..Rev Med Suisse Romande1994;114:465-70