Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsRandomized Controlled TrialEurope PMCOpen access

The Outcome of 3 Various Reconstructive Procedures After Permanent Filler Removal and Deep Plane Face Lift

Ghoraba SM.

Randomized Controlled Trial on Face & Skin, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2026)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
41858711
PMCID
PMC12999106
DOI
10.1097/gox.0000000000007367

Abstract (original English)

Background Deep plane face lift in patients with previous permanent filler injections is a formidable reconstructive and aesthetic procedure. Various reconstructive techniques have been previously described in the literature to address the defects after removal of permanent fillers. However, no comparative study in the literature has been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness and complications of these reconstructive procedures in the pursuit of achieving aesthetically favorable results with safe techniques. The study aimed to describe the effectiveness and complications of 3 reconstructive techniques: micro-fat grafting, dermal fat grafting, and pedicled flap reconstruction. Methods A multiarm, randomized, parallel study was conducted among patients who had undergone permanent filler injections between 2014 and 2022. Patients were divided randomly into 3 groups, each comprising 160 individuals; all patients were managed by removal of the permanent fillers, deep plane face lift, and reconstruction of the defects as a consequence of the filler removal. Participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups. This allocation was based on the defect reconstruction method, including dermofat grafting (group A), fat grafting (group B), and a pedicled buccal fat pad flap (group C). The minimum follow-up was 6 months. Results The most prevalent complications detected were contour irregul

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research