Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

A Systematic Review and Comparative Analysis of Reconstructive Rhytidectomy: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Patient Outcomes

Meretsky CR., Hausner P., Flynn BP., Schiuma AT.

Systematic Review on Scar, Skin Aging, published in Cureus (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • 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
Systematic Review
Journal
Cureus (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39507149
PMCID
PMC11539935
DOI
10.7759/cureus.71006
Citations
6

Abstract (original English)

Reconstructive rhytidectomy, commonly known as facelift surgery, is a prominent cosmetic procedure aimed at rejuvenating facial appearance by addressing signs of aging. This paper critically evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of various surgical techniques involved in rhytidectomy, including the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS), deep plane facelift, and subperiosteal approaches. This systematic review of recent literature highlights key outcomes such as scar quality, postoperative pain management, and patient satisfaction. While the techniques demonstrate significant improvements in aesthetic results and patient quality of life, they also present risks including complications, dissatisfaction with outcomes, and the financial burden of surgery. Future directions indicate a trend toward minimally invasive approaches, integration of regenerative medicine, and personalized surgical planning, aiming to optimize results and minimize risks.

What this study does not prove

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

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research