Levin · Facial plastic surgery & aesthetic medicine 2026 · retrospective case series · n=77

Thirty Years of Deep Plane Facelifts: Characterizing Outcomes and Longevity.

Cited 1 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Single-surgeon retrospective case series

PubMed 41749415 · doi:10.1177/26893614261422044 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A retrospective chart review examined 93 revision facelift procedures across a single surgeon's 30-year practice to assess surgical longevity. Analyzed variables included patient demographics, adjunctive procedures, and the time interval between primary and revision deep plane facelifts. Patients were stratified into age cohorts (≤53 years vs. >53 years at the time of primary surgery) and compared using t-tests.

What was found

The cohort comprised 77 patients who underwent a second facelift (73 females [94.8%], 4 males [5.2%]), 14 who had a third, and 2 who had a fourth. The mean age was 53.5 ± 6.85 years at the primary facelift and 64.5 ± 6.5 years at the second. Adjunctive procedures performed included upper blepharoplasty (18.18%), brow lift (15.5%), lower blepharoplasty (7.8%), and rhinoplasty (7.8%). The overall mean interval between primary and secondary deep plane facelifts was 10.9 ± 5.1 years. Patients who underwent primary surgery at ≤53 years returned for revision after a mean of 12.4 ± 5.6 years, compared to 9.3 ± 3.9 years for patients >53 years (p = 0.004).

Why it matters

This study provides single-practice empirical timeline data indicating that repeat deep plane facelifts occurred after approximately a decade, with longer duration observed in patients who received their primary surgery at age 53 or younger.

Limits

The study is limited to a single surgeon's retrospective practice, restricting generalizability. Using revision timing as a proxy for longevity introduces heavy selection bias, as it only captures patients who chose and could afford to return to the same surgeon for revision, omitting those satisfied long term, lost to follow-up, or seeking care elsewhere. Objective aesthetic outcome scales, satisfaction metrics, and complication rates were not reported.

Cited by