Triple-S Lift for Facial Rejuvenation
- 132 Downloads
Since the beginning of the last century, when the aesthetic rejuvenating surgery was first described, there have been great changes in tactics and methods for solving the problems of age-related facial changes. Since the first description of the superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS), there have been two main approaches to influencing this structure. These are various types of SMAS plications and different in-depth and technique sub-SMAS liftings. Each of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages.
A short scar technique;
The safety SMAS (limited sub-SMAS dissection to anterior border of the masseter muscle);
The support system (a complex of ligatures in the sub-SMAS layer, which allows lifting and plication of the medial part of the SMAS simultaneously)
According to this method, there were 93 operations performed on 8 men and 85 women aged 38 to 72 years.
The first clinical applications produced good results. The patients noted a high degree of satisfaction, and the level of complications was quite low. Since the technique has been performed for a short period of time, we demonstrate results of the 2-year period.
The described technique requires further study, but the first results suggest that this type of a surgical intervention is safe, easy to execute, and may be an option to choose for surgical correction of facial aging changes.
Level of Evidence IV
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.
KeywordsFace-lift Triple-S lift SMAS Face rejuvenation Skin laxity
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this paper.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
The patients provided their consent for publication of their photographs.
- 7.Hamra ST (2001) Correcting the unfavorable outcomes following face-lift surgery. Clin Plast Surg 28:621–638Google Scholar
- 8.Mendelson BC (2009) Facelift anatomy, SMAS, retaining ligaments, and facial spaces. In: Aston SJ, Steinbrech DS, Walden JL (eds) Aesthetic plastic surgery. Elsevier, London, pp 53–72Google Scholar
- 10.Owsley JQ (1995) Elevation of the malar fat pad superficial to the orbicularis oculi muscle for correction of prominent nasolabial folds. Clin Plast Surg 22:279–293Google Scholar
- 17.Sundine MJ, Kretsis V, Connell BF (2010) Longevity of SMAS facial rejuvenation and support. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:229–237Google Scholar
- 18.Stuzin JM, Baker TJ, Gordon HL, Baker TM (1995) Extended SMAS dissection as an approach to midface rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 22:295–311Google Scholar
- 21.Yousif N, Mendelson BC (1995) Anatomy of the midface. Clin Plast Surg 22:227–240Google Scholar
- 36.Rammos CK, Mohan AT, Maricevich MA et al (2015) Is the SMAS flap facelift safe? A comparison of complications between the sub-SMAS approach versus the subcutaneous approach with or without SMAS plication in aesthetic rhytidectomy at an academic institution. Aesthet Plast Surg 39(6):870–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Adamson PA, Dahiya R, Litner J (2007) Midface effects of the deep-plane vs. the superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication face-lift. Arch Fac Plast Surg 9(1):9–11Google Scholar
- 42.Miller AJ, Graham HD 3rd (1997) Comparison of conventional and deep plane facelift. J La State Med Soc 149(11):406–411Google Scholar