Is there a difference? A prospective study comparing lateral and standard SMAS face lifts with extended SMAS and...

Presented is a prospective study comparing limited SMAS (lateral SMASectomy), conventional SMAS, extended SMAS, and composite rhytidectomies. Randomized patients received either a limited SMAS or conventional SMAS face lift on one side and an extended SMAS or composite rhytidectomy on the other. All procedures were performed at Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital in accordance with their well-defined surgical descriptions. Postoperative courses were followed clinically for at least 1 year. Photographs were taken preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Photographs were reviewed by three independent experienced face lift surgeons. The study comprises 21 patients, 20 women and 1 man, with a mean age of 59 years (range 47 to 70 years). Nineteen patients underwent primary rhytidectomies; two underwent secondary face lifts. For the first 12 patients, each had an extended SMAS procedure performed on one side; on the other, 7 had a conventional SMAS and 5 had a limited SMAS (lateral SMASectomy) face lift. In the last 9 patients, a conventional SMAS was carried out on one side in 8, a limited SMAS in 1, and on the opposite side, a composite rhytidectomy was performed. Complications were few. Temporary weakness of the buccal branch of the facial nerve occurred in 2 patients on the side of the more extensive surgery. On the operating table at completion of the surgery, there was more improvement in reversal of midfacial ptosis and flattening of the nasolabial folds with both extended SMAS and composite rhytidectomies. The composite flap had the most dramatic effect on the nasolabial folds and oral commissure. After 24 hours, once swelling developed and facial motion became reactivated, the noticeable differences in the midface and nasolabial folds were lost. No discernible differences in facial halves were noted again. Differences between facial sides on the 6- and 12-month postoperative photographs were not detectable. We conclude that for routine facial plasty, comparable clinical outcomes are obtained at 6 months and 1 year with limited (lateral SMASectomy) and conventional SMAS face lifts compared with extended SMAS and composite rhytidectomies. All procedures are lacking in their improvement of midface ptosis and the nasolabial folds. The increased surgical risks, morbidity, and convalescence associated with those more extensive procedures do not seem to be warranted in the average patient.