INTRODUCTION
Non-surgical aesthetic procedures, such as botulinum toxin and fillers, are
increasingly delaying the indication for facial lifting, especially in the
frontotemporal region1. In this context,
we observed a lack of publications that contemplate the mini facelift technique
with a reduced scar standardization as part of the therapeutic arsenal for the
face middle and lower thirds treatment.
Thus, we used the facelift light technique standardization, which consists in
moderate detachment, demarcated in the preoperative period, as well as its
execution with specific points for the detachment, associated with the plication
of the superficial aponeurotic system (SMAS) and the points of adhesion (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). Standardized preoperative marking makes this technique
reproducible and with less learning curve, but without compromising the results.
The SMAS plication proved to be essential for the best treatment and lasting
traction, associated with a reduction in skin tension, with less risk of flap
necrosis and a better quality of the scar.
Figure 1 - Standardized marking of the detachment area, showing the incision
site. Arrows indicate the area to be detached, 4-6 cm from the
lobe.
Figure 1 - Standardized marking of the detachment area, showing the incision
site. Arrows indicate the area to be detached, 4-6 cm from the
lobe.
Figure 2 - Red line represents the skin mark to be removed, with the drawing
of the tragus flap. Lilac line represents the post-tragal and
periauricular incision.
Figure 2 - Red line represents the skin mark to be removed, with the drawing
of the tragus flap. Lilac line represents the post-tragal and
periauricular incision.
Figure 3 - SMAS plication points, with traction direction. The suture order
starting at the angle of the mandible.
Figure 3 - SMAS plication points, with traction direction. The suture order
starting at the angle of the mandible.
Figure 4 - Adhesion points. Stitches with monocryl 4.0 (in white) and
colorless mononylon 4.0 (in blue).
Figure 4 - Adhesion points. Stitches with monocryl 4.0 (in white) and
colorless mononylon 4.0 (in blue).
OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the results of the facelift light as a standardized and reproducible
technique, the moderate SMAS detachment and plication, with natural results,
associated with lower rates of complications and early return to activities.
METHODS
Two hundred eighty-four patients who underwent rhytidoplasty using the facelift
light technique were operated on from 2014 to 2020, 39 were men. Patients aged
between 31 and 84 years (with a mean of 56 years). All patients were operated
on
and observed by the same surgeon and author of this study (2014 - 24, 2015 -
35,
2016 - 33, 2017 - 42, 2018 - 51, 2019 - 80, 2020 - 19).
Surgical technique
With the patient in an orthostatic position, the preoperative marking of the
region of the incision is made, of the region to be released and of the
possible skin to be removed (Figures 1
and 2). Taking the location of the ear lobe insertion as the center of the
circumference, we make a circle that varies from 4 to 6 centimeters,
according to the existing alterations in the mandible branch (“jowl” or
“bulldog”) and the platysmal bands of the neck. In the submental region,
liposuction is already scheduled, if necessary.
All patients were operated on a hospital operating room under local
anesthesia associated with sedation. Local infiltration was performed with
lidocaine solution (40 ml), saline solution (120 ml), and an adrenaline
ampoule.
The incision is made only in the glabrous area, so there is no need to cut
hair. The incision starts at the rib capillary region (around 1.5 cm),
breaking at an angle of 90 degrees in the pre-auricular region, descending
retrotragal, and outlining the ear from its posterior region to its upper
portion (Figure 2). Subcutaneous
detachment is done initially with the scalpel and then with scissors in the
demarcated area.
The second step is the plication of the superficial muscle-aponeurotic system
(SMAS), made with colorless nylon 4.0 (Figure 3). Starting the suture through the mandible branch, then in the
anterior region, and finally in the posterior region, leaving the entire
surface smooth and without sagging. The next step is the adhesion suture of
the entire flap, made with monocryl 4.0, pulling gently without marking the
skin too much (Figure 4). The adhesion
points follow the same order as the SMAS, starting with the mandible
branch.
After the excess skin is removed, adjusting with the drawing made previously,
there may be the need to remove a little more or less. The skin is sutured
with monocryl 4.0 and, finally, with a continuous intradermal suture
performed with monocryl 5.0; there is no need for drains. The last step is
liposuction of the subment, made by a small median incision in the subment.
And the compressive dressing with gauze around the ear, padded gauze, and
the elastic band. The dressing is renewed 24 hours after discharge (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Marking, detachment, adhesion points, excess skin, suture and
dressing.
Figure 5 - Marking, detachment, adhesion points, excess skin, suture and
dressing.
RESULTS
Partial results are seen in the first few weeks, especially after lymphatic
drainage. After a month, edema is no longer observed. In the long term, the
surgery can be redone around 5 to 7 years, and since it does not change the hair
implant, it can be done several times over the years without leaving stigmas,
as
seen in one year postoperative (Figures 6
and 7). The complications were much less,
where the rare hematomas were restricted to small regions drained by 7-day
transcutaneous puncture (12 cases). The main complaint is the persistence in
elderly and post-bariatric patients of some skin in the central cervical
region.
Figure 6 - Postoperative period of 2 months and 1 year.
Figure 6 - Postoperative period of 2 months and 1 year.
Figure 7 - Postoperative with detail in the retroauricular region.
Figure 7 - Postoperative with detail in the retroauricular region.
DISCUSSION
Facial rejuvenation must encompass several complementary forms of treatment and
act effectively in all facial regions. The rising cosmiatric arsenal, with
fillers added to the botulinum toxin, puts into question the broad coronal
lifting, especially in younger patients. In older individuals, understanding
the
interaction between these complex anatomical changes is essential when choosing
a surgical strategy, which can vary from periorbital treatment, through
conservative frontal lifting, to radical liftings in this region2.
Facelift light is approached in this study as an alternative for the face middle
and lower thirds treatment, with a standardized, reproducible mark; with a
reduced scar, moderate detachment, plication of the SMAS and points of adhesion;
as well as with natural results, few complications and early return of patients
to daily activities.
Standardized preoperative marking facilitates the technique reproducibility with
more accessible and safer learning compared to classic rhytidoplasty or
aggressive detachments3. Since the most
aggressive and profound approaches, or large detachments, bring an even higher
risk of other complications, such as injuries to facial nerve branches and flaps
suffering 4.
Several authors report that they have reduced the detachments’ amplitude and
realized that results are equally good and very similar to those obtained with
the broader and more generalized detachments used before. These are now reserved
for cases of great skin flaccidity and for those who need large cervical
degreasing associated with platysma plication5,6.
Another essential point of rhytidoplasty is the treatment of the superficial
musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) 5,7, as it has
become essential during the performance of the facial lifting, since it
determines the elevation and traction of the tissue planes, with long-term
effects8. These techniques can be
used, ranging from mobilization, plication, and repositioning, to subaponeurotic
resections. In this context, the facelift light is performed with the
standardized plication of the SMAS, without detachment and deep resections, to
reduce the risk of injury to the subaponeurotic structures.
The use of adhesion points applied in the pre and behind-the-ear regions reduced
to zero the incidence of large bruises requiring urgent surgical drainage9,10, making the use of drains unnecessary with the use of this
technique.
Thus, the rejuvenation surgery of the face middle and lower thirds has been
evolving to perform less invasive and less aggressive techniques, in order to
reduce complications and provide an earlier return to the usual activities of
patients8-12; without, however, compromising the
occurrence of natural and satisfactory results to patients.
CONCLUSION
The facelift light technique was considered satisfactory due to the quality of
the results obtained in this series, the low rate of complications, and the
early return of patients to their activities.
REFERENCES
1. Menezes MVA, A bla LEF, Dutra LB, Junqueira AE, Ferreira LM.
Modified minilifting results: prospective study. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2010;25(2):285-90.
2. Tabatabai N, Spinelli HM. Limited incision nonendoscopic brow
lift. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(5):1563-70.
3. Baker DC, Stefani WA, Chiu ES. Reducing the incidence of hematoma
requiring surgical evacuation following male rhytidectomy: a 30-year review of
985 cases. Plastic Reconstr Surg. 2005
Dez;116(7):1973-85;discussion:1986-7.
4. Paul MD, Calvert JW, Evans GR. The evolution of the midface lift
in aesthetic plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006
Mai;117(6):1809-27.
5. Mitz V, Peyronie M. The superficial musculo-aponeurotic system
(SMAS) in the parotid and cheek area. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1976
Jul;58(1):80-8.
6. Saldanha OR, Azevedo SFD, Saldanha Filho OR, Saldanha CB, Chaves
LO. Ritidoplastia com descolamento composto. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2010;25(1):135-40.
7. Pitanguy I, Degand M, Ceravolo MP, Bos H. Considerações sobre
nossa experiência com dissecção e plicatura do SMAS em meloplastia. Rev Bras
Cir
Plást. 1981;71(1):57-72.
8. Maloney BP, Schiebelhoffer J. Minimal-incision endoscopic
face-lift. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2000;2(4):274-8.
9. Destro MWB, Destro C, Baroudi R. Adhesion stitches in
rhytidoplasty: a comparative study. Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2013;28(1):55-8.
10. Cló TXT, Ferraz Junior WFF, Leão CEG, Cló FX, Mourão LM, Leão
LR. Perioperative systematization for the prevention of hematomas following
face-lift procedures: a personal approach bases on 1,138 surgical cases. Rev
Bras Cir Plást. 2019 Jan/Mar;34(1):2-9.
11. Aboudib JH, Pontes R, Amaral PB, Castro CC. Debate sobre
ritidoplastias: "radicais ou econômicas?". Rev Bras Cir Plást.
2005;20(4):253-5.
12. Zani R, Fadul Junior R, Rocha MAD, Santos RA, Alves MCA,
Ferreira LM. Facial nerve in rhytidoplasty: anatomic study of its trajectory
in
the overlying skin and the most common sites of injury. Ann Plast Surg. 2003
Set;51(3):236-42.
1. Isaac Furtado Clinic, Fortaleza, CE,
Brazil.
2. Hospital Geral de Fortaleza, Fortaleza, CE,
Brazil.
Corresponding author: Isaac Rocha Furtado Avenida Dom Luís,
1233, Sala 606, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil. Zip Code: 60160.230 E-mail:
dr.isaacfurtado@gmail.com
Article received: June 10, 2019.
Article accepted: July 15, 2020.
Conflicts of interest: none.