Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2025
Single-stage Dynamic Reanimation of the Smile in Irreversible Facial Paralysis by Free Functional Muscle Transfer
Published on: March 1, 2015
Clinical Practice Patterns in Facelift Surgery: A 15-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the
Michael J Stein1, Nikhil Shah2, John Harrast3
1Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Background:
This study evaluates change in practice patterns in facelift surgery based on a 15-year review of tracer data collected by the American Board of Plastic Surgery as part of the Continuous Certification process.
Methods:
Tracer data for facelift was reviewed from 2006 to 2021. The 15-year collection period was divided into an "early cohort (EC)" from 2006 to 2014 and a "recent cohort (RC)" from 2015 to 2021.
Results:
Of 3400 facelifts (1710 EC/1690 RC) performed, 18% were done in hospital and 76% were done in an accredited office facility. Ninety one percent of patients were female with an average age of 61 years. There was an increase in the number of secondary facelifts (4% EC vs 18% RC; p < 0.001) and an increased number of patients concerned about volume loss/deflation (25% EC vs 37% RC; p < 0.001). The surgical approach to the SMAS involved plication (40%), flaps (35%), SMASectomy (22%) and MACS lift (6%). One percent of facelifts were subperiosteal and 8% skin-only. Significantly more surgeons used the lateral SMAS flap (14% EC vs 18% RC, p < 0.005), while less used an extended SMAS flap (21% vs 18%; p = 0.001) and MACS lift (10% EC vs 6% RC; p = 0.021) techniques. The concomitant use of facial fat grafting is becoming more common (15% EC vs 24% RC, p = 0.0001).
Conclusions:
A 15-year review of ABPS tracer data provides an excellent venue for the objective assessment of the current status of facelift surgery, and key changes in practice patterns during that time.
Level Of Evidence Iii:
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 .
