Download PDF
Facial Plast Surg 2022; 38(06): 584-592
DOI: 10.1055/a-1862-9024
Original Article

Modified Composite Plane Facelift with Extended Neck Dissection

Ozcan Cakmak
1   FACEISTANBUL, Facial Plastic Surgery, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Ismet Emre
2   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The attenuation of retaining ligaments with aging leads to downward displacement of facial fat compartments and is responsible for many of the stigmata that occur with aging. The zygomatic cutaneous and masseteric cutaneous ligaments prevent the transmission of adequate traction to the malar portion of the dissection during traditional low superficial muscular aponeurotic system (SMAS) facelift techniques which involve plication or imbrication of the exposed surface of the SMAS because they do not include surgical release of these ligaments. Inadequate release of these ligaments, especially the zygomatic cutaneous ligament may lead to an unbalanced, unnatural appearance with unopposed nasolabial folds. In contrast, extended facelift techniques (extended SMAS, high SMAS, deep plane facelift, and composite plane facelift) involving the release of these ligaments and can reposition the ptotic malar fat and diminish the nasolabial folds. Additionally, the composite and modified composite plane facelifts include orbicularis oculi muscle elevation and can achieve a more harmonious rejuvenation. However, due to facial nerve injury risk, many facelift surgeons either inadequately release these ligamentous attachments or prefer less-invasive techniques. Modified composite plane facelift allows safe release of the zygomatic cutaneous ligament, and safe entry into the right plane leaving all malar fat pad attached to the skin. Modified composite plane facelift technique also produces combined, balanced, and harmonious rejuvenation of the midface, cheek, lower face, and neck without requiring a separate midface lift procedure or a transblepharoplasty approach. Extending the sub-SMAS/subplatysmal dissection inferior to the angle of mandible, releasing of the cervical retaining ligaments, and adding a horizontal platysma myotomy below the angle of the mandible significantly improve the cervical contouring and enhances the jawline rejuvenation. This study explains modified composite-flap facelift with extended neck dissection in a step-by-step manner and highlights anatomical details to perform a safe, effective, and successful extended face and neck lift surgery.

Keywords

facelift - rhytidectomy - composite plane - deep plane - neck lift


Publication History

Accepted Manuscript online:
26 May 2022

Article published online:
23 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Furnas DW. The retaining ligaments of the cheek. Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 83 (01) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mendelson BC, Muzaffar AR, Adams Jr WP. Surgical anatomy of the midcheek and malar mounds. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (03) 885-896 , discussion 897–911
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Stuzin JM. MOC-PSSM CME article: face lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121 (1, suppl) 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Alghoul M, Bitik O, McBride J, Zins JE. Relationship of the zygomatic facial nerve to the retaining ligaments of the face: the Sub-SMAS danger zone. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (02) 245e-252e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cakmak O, Emre IE. Surgical anatomy for extended facelift techniques. Facial Plast Surg 2020; 36 (03) 309-316
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Stuzin JM, Baker TJ, Gordon HL. The relationship of the superficial and deep facial fascias: relevance to rhytidectomy and aging. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89 (03) 441-449 , discussion 450–451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mendelson BC. Surgery of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system: principles of release, vectors, and fixation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (06) 1545-1552 , discussion 1556–1557, 1558–1561 PubMed
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hamra ST. Building the composite face lift: a personal odyssey. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (01) 85-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cakmak O, Emre IE, Özücer B. Surgical approach to the thick nasolabial folds, jowls and heavy neck-how to approach and suspend the facial ligaments. Facial Plast Surg 2018; 34 (01) 59-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Stuzin JM, Baker TJ, Gordon HL, Baker TM. Extended SMAS dissection as an approach to midface rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 1995; 22 (02) 295-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Barton Jr FE. The “high SMAS” face lift technique. Aesthet Surg J 2002; 22 (05) 481-486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hamra ST. The deep-plane rhytidectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 86 (01) 53-61 , discussion 62–63
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hamra ST. Composite rhytidectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 90 (01) 1-13
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Keller GS, Cray J. Suprafibromuscular facelifting with periosteal suspension of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system and fat pad of Bichat rotation. Tightening the net. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1996; 122 (04) 377-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cakmak O, Özücer B, Aktekin M, Özkurt FE, Al-Salman R, Emre IE. Modified composite-flap facelift combined with finger-assisted malar elevation (FAME): a cadaver study. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (12) 1269-1279
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Hamra ST. A study of the long-term effect of malar fat repositioning in face lift surgery: short-term success but long-term failure. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 110 (03) 940-951 , discussion 952–959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hamra ST. The zygorbicular dissection in composite rhytidectomy: an ideal midface plane. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102 (05) 1646-1657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jacono AA, Alemi AS, Russell JL. A meta-analysis of complication rates among different SMAS facelift techniques. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (09) 927-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cakmak O. Clarification regarding the modified finger-assisted malar elevation (FAME) technique. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (05) NP161-NP162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mendelson B, Wong CH. Commentary on: modified composite-flap facelift combined with finger-assisted malar elevation (FAME): a cadaver study. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38 (12) 1284-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mendelson B, Wong CH. Response to “Clarification regarding the modified finger-assisted malar elevation (FAME) technique”. Aesthet Surg J 2019; 39 (05) NP163-NP164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Andretto Amodeo C, Casasco A, Icaro Cornaglia A, Kang R, Keller GS. The suborbicularis oculi fat (SOOF) and the fascial planes: has everything already been explained?. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014; 16 (01) 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Aston SJ, Walden JL. Facelift with SMAS techniques and FAME. In: Aston SJ, Steinbrech DS, Walden JL. eds. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. London, United Kingdom: Saunders Elsevier; 2009: 73-86 , 72
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Hwang K, Lee DK, Lee EJ, Chung IH, Lee SI. Innervation of the lower eyelid in relation to blepharoplasty and midface lift: clinical observation and cadaveric study. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 47 (01) 1-5 , discussion 5–7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tremolada C, Fissette J, Candiani P. Anatomical basis for a safe and easier approach to composite rhytidectomy. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1994; 18 (04) 387-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ryu MH, Moon VA. High superficial musculoaponeurotic system facelift with finger-assisted facial spaces dissection for Asian patients. Aesthet Surg J 2015; 35 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 DiFrancesco LM, Anjema CM, Codner MA, McCord CD, English J. Evaluation of conventional subciliary incision used in blepharoplasty: preoperative and postoperative videography and electromyography findings. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116 (02) 632-639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 McCord CD, Walrath JD, Nahai F. Concepts in eyelid biomechanics with clinical implications. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (02) 209-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Daane SP, Owsley JQ. Incidence of cervical branch injury with “marginal mandibular nerve pseudo-paralysis” in patients undergoing face lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111 (07) 2414-2418
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Owsley JQ, Agarwal CA. Safely navigating around the facial nerve in three dimensions. Clin Plast Surg 2008; 35 (04) 469-477 , v
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Marten TJ. High SMAS facelift: combined single flap lifting of the jawline, cheek, and midface. Clin Plast Surg 2008; 35 (04) 569-603 , vi–vii
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Mustoe TA, Rawlani V, Zimmerman H. Modified deep plane rhytidectomy with a lateral approach to the neck: an alternative to submental incision and dissection. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (01) 357-370
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Jacono AA, Malone MH. Characterization of the cervical retaining ligaments during subplatysmal facelift dissection and its implications. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (05) 495-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Jacono A, Bryant LM. Extended deep plane facelift: incorporating facial retaining ligament release and composite flap shifts to maximize midface, jawline and neck rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 2018; 45 (04) 527-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Feldman JJ. Neck lift my way: an update. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134 (06) 1173-1183
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Marten T, Elyassnia D. Neck Lift: defining anatomic problems and choosing appropriate treatment strategies. Clin Plast Surg 2018; 45 (04) 455-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Auersvald A, Auersvald LA, Oscar Uebel C. Subplatysmal necklift: a retrospective analysis of 504 patients. Aesthet Surg J 2017; 37 (01) 1-11
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Connell BF, Shamoun JM. The significance of digastric muscle contouring for rejuvenation of the submental area of the face. Plast Reconstr Surg 1997; 99 (06) 1586-1590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Auersvald A, Auersvald LA. Management of the submandibular gland in neck lifts: indications, techniques, pearls, and pitfalls. Clin Plast Surg 2018; 45 (04) 507-525
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Yousif NJ, Matloub HS, Sanger JR. Hyoid suspension neck lift. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (06) 1181-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar