The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study
Systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies and controlled trials
PubMed 40801931 · doi:10.1007/s00266-025-05118-x
What was done
A systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science (2000–2024) for controlled trials and cohort studies comparing SMAS and deep plane facelifts. The primary outcome was patient-rated overall satisfaction; secondary outcomes were long-term satisfaction (over one year) and adverse events.
What was found
From 21 included studies with 2,896 patients, deep plane facelifts showed patient satisfaction of 94.4% (95% CI 84.8% to 99.7%) compared to 87.8% (95% CI 84.3% to 91.3%) for SMAS facelifts. Overall complication rates were 17.2% for deep plane facelifts and 10.3% (95% CI 6.20% to 14.4%) for SMAS facelifts.
Why it matters
This synthesis provides comparative satisfaction and complication benchmarks for the two dominant facelift techniques, indicating high overall patient satisfaction for both approaches.
Limits
The study synthesized single-arm data from non-randomized cohort and controlled studies rather than head-to-head randomized trials. The abstract omits confidence intervals for deep plane complications, specific complication types/severities, and isolated figures for long-term satisfaction.
Cited by
- supports Studies comparing SMAS facelifts and deep plane facelifts show that both techniques have similar longevity of surgical results.
- supports No studies have demonstrated that deep plane facelifts produce better scarring outcomes than SMAS facelifts.