BACKGROUND: Literature regarding the longevity of deep plane facelifts is limited.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the time duration between initial deep plane facelifts and revision facelifts among patients treated in a single-surgeons practice over a 30-year period.
METHODS: Chart review from a surgeon's 30-year experience performing revision facelifts. Patient demographics and motivation, timing for primary/revision facelifts, and adjunctive procedures were collected. Patients were stratified into groups ≤53 and >53 based on statistical assessment. t-Tests were used.
RESULTS: A total of 93 revision facelifts on patients who underwent deep plane lifts were included. Seventy-seven patients had a second facelift, 14 had a third, and 2 had a fourth. Sex (female 73/77, 94.8%; male 4/77, 5.2%), age at time of first facelift (mean = 53.5 ± 6.85), second facelift (mean = 64.5 ± 6.5). Adjunctive procedures: Upper/lower blepharoplasty (18.18%, 7.8%), brow lift (15.5%), and rhinoplasty (7.8%) (Table 1). The mean interval between the primary deep plane facelift and the secondary lift was 10.9 years ± 5.1 Patients who underwent primary facelift surgery at ≤53 years of age returned for revision facelift after 12.4 years ± 5.6; patients >53 returned 9.3 years later ± 3.9 (p = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: Patients returning for revision surgery following deep plane facelifts do so after an average of 10.9 years. Patients who are younger at the time of their initial facelift may have greater longevity.
Thirty Years of Deep Plane Facelifts: Characterizing Outcomes and Longevity.
TL;DR
BACKGROUND: Literature regarding the longevity of deep plane facelifts is limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure the time duration between initial deep plane facelifts and revision facelifts among patients treated in a single-surgeons practice over a 30-year period. METHODS: Chart review from a surgeon's 30-year experience performing revision facelifts. Patient demographics and motivation, timing for primary/revision facelifts, and adjunctive procedures were collected. Patients were stratified into grou
Credibility Assessment
Preliminary — 38/100
Study Design
Rigor of the research methodology
5/20
Sample Size
Whether the study was sufficiently powered
7/20
Peer Review
Review status and journal reputation
10/20
Replication
Has this finding been independently reproduced?
6/20
Transparency
Funding disclosure and data availability
10/20
Overall
Sum of all five dimensions
38/100
0 Comments
Log in to join the discussion.