Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: To evaluate superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) plication face-lift versus SMAS undermining techniques in correcting the medio-labial fold, jowl, and cheek areas of the face in middle-term follow-up.
Method :
A retrospective chart review was conducted on 108 patients who underwent facelift surgery between 2000 and 2020
Conclusion:
Deep-plane face-lift does not seem to offer superior results over SMAS plication face-lift .
The extent of skin detachment and the use of 2 different vectors seems to correlate with the quality of the result, whatever the technique used for the smas.

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: Face anatomy, correction face lifting indications, modified extended deep plane

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: WHO to follow - learning from medical influencers

Introduction: 2016 I was hit by Mendelsons view of anatomical spaces and the use in facelift surgery. I started the technique and developed my own approach. Nevertheless Andrew Jacono has to be cited to spread Deep Plane technique around the world. Now, Ben Talai, Dominic Bray and Mike Nayak further developed the technique with special emphasis on the neck.

Materials / method: 678 facelifts were conducted with refined techniques of deep Plane surgery since 2016. In this talk the development of the technique and finesses are presented

Conclusion: Deep Plane Facelift technique is very fashionable - but requires profound anatomical knowledge and surgical skills. Medical influencers with enormous experience in this technique spread their wisdom- but the knife remains in the hand of each surgeon- this talk demonstrates the step to step approach to modern facelift surgery.

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability

Objectives: Formulate advantages of preservation deep plane facelift approach over the standard SMAS facelift procedures

Introduction: The standard SMAS facelift is a common operation in plastic surgery that has been known for many years. The key differences between a deep plane facelift and a standard SMAS facelift lie in the techniques used, the layers of tissue involved, and the results each method can achieve.

In standard SMAS Facelift the surgeon lifts the SMAS layer without going into the deeper tissues. The SMAS is typically either lifted and tightened SMAS layer.

In deep Plane Facelift lifting and repositioning the deeper layers-skin and SMAS like composite flap, allowing for a more comprehensive lift, particularly

Materials / method: In the Preservation Deep plan Facelift we raise the skin only to the necessary extent in front of the ear and on the neck, without subcutaneous preparation of the skin in the entire neck, further preparation takes place already in the deep layers below the SMAS and platysma muscle. In the lecture we present the preservation deep plane facelift technique using 3D animation

Results: n the study we compared 20 patients who underwent a standard deep plane facelift and 20 patients who underwent a preservation deep plane facelift. In patients who underwent a preservation deep plane facelift, we observed less bruising, swelling, less risk of skin necrosis, faster healing and possible inclusion in social life.

Conclusion: The preservation technique of deep plane facelifting is more gentle technique when perform limited dissection the skin compared to standard deepp plane facelifting. With this technique, there is less damage to the vascular supply of the skin, which has a number of advantages in postoperative healing.

Disclosures

Did you receive any funding to support your research for this TOPIC?
No

Were you provided with any honoraria, payment or other compensation for your work on this study?
No

Do you have any financial relationship with any entity which may closely compete with the medications, materials or instruments covered by your study?
No

Do you own or have you applied for any patents in conjunction with the instruments, medications or materials discussed in your study?
No

This work was not supported by any direct or non direct funding. It is under the author's own responsability