Midface-lift patient satisfaction: A 5-year follow-up study

 

 Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Context: Several studies showed, from the clinical point of view, the advantages of the various techniques and surgical approaches to obtain facial rejuvenation. A few studies have highlighted the satisfaction or not of patients who underwent a traditional facelift; however, a long-term follow-up study measuring patient satisfaction with midface-lift surgery has not been published yet. Aims: The aim of this study is to measure individual patient satisfaction with the midface lift, to find out from each patient his/her level of satisfaction 1 and 5 years after the operation and to compare the results to assess the benefits of the surgery. Background: Several studies showed, from a clinical point of view, the advantages of the various techniques and surgical approaches to obtain facial rejuvenation; however, a long-term follow-up study measuring patient satisfaction with midface-lift surgery has not been published yet. Materials and Methods: Between January 2005 and January 2010, 163 patients underwent a midface lift. All patients were asked to complete a standardised survey 1 and 5 years after surgery, in order to measure outcomes among facial aesthetic patients. Statistical Analysis Used: The paired t-test. Results: All patients reported an improvement as a result of the midface lift. Statistically significant differences in judgement criteria were found for malar eminence and nasojugal groove. Almost all of the patients turned out to be completely satisfied with their appearance with the new look. Conclusions: Patients were extremely satisfied with their decision to undergo a midface lift and with the outcomes and quality of life following the procedure.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Ivy EJ, Lorenc ZP, Aston SJ. Is there a difference? A prospective study comparing lateral and standard SMAS face lifts with extended SMAS and composite rhytidectomies. Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98: 1135-43
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Kamer FM, Mingrone MD. Deep plane rhytidectomy: A personal evolution. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2002; 10: 63-75 viii
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Alsarraf R, To WC, Johnson Jr CM. The deep plane facelift. Facial Plast Surg 2003; 19: 95-106
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Paul MD, Calvert JW, Evans GR. The evolution of the midface lift in aesthetic plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 117: 1809-27
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Alsarraf R. Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: A review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2000; 24: 192-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Alsarraf R, Larrabee Jr. WF, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson Jr CM. Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: A pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2001; 3: 198-201
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL, Scott AM, Wilkins EG, Cano SJ. et al. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123: 1819-27
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Sinno S, Schwitzer JA, Anzai L, Thorne C. Facelift satisfaction using the FACE-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (Suppl. 04) Suppl 144
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Friel MT, Shaw RE, Trovato MJ, Owsley JQ. The measure of face-lift patient satisfaction: The Owsley Facelift Satisfaction Survey with a long-term follow-up study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 245-57
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 McCollough EG, Scurry Jr. WC, Shirazi MA. The “midface-lift” as a misnomer for correctly identifying procedures designed to lift and rejuvenate the cheeks and malar regions of the face. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009; 11: 257-62
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Ching S, Thoma A, McCabe RE, Antony MM. Measuring outcomes in aesthetic surgery: A comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111: 469-80
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Krastinova-Lolov D. Le lifting facial sous-perioste. Ann Chir Plast Esthet 1989; 34: 199-211
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Psillakis JM, Rumley TO, Camargos A. Subperiosteal approach as an improved concept for correction of the aging face. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 82: 383-94
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Santana PS. Craniomaxillofacial methodology in ritidoplastias. Cir Plast Iberoam Latinoam 1984; 10: 321-50
  Google Scholar
• 15 Ramirez OM, Maillard GF, Musolas A. The extended subperiosteal face lift: A definitive soft-tissue remodeling for facial rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991; 88: 227-36
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Tapia A, Ferreria B, Blanch A. Subperiostic lifting. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1991; 15: 155-60
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Fuente-del Campo A. Reconstructive surgery of facial aging without scars visables. Cir Cir 1993; 60: 123-32
  Google Scholar
• 18 Ortiz Monasterio F. Aesthetic surgery of the facial skeleton: The forehead. Clin Plast Surg 1991; 18: 19-27
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Isse NG. Endoscopic facial rejuvenation. Clin Plast Surg 1997; 24: 213-31
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Dempsey PD, Oneal RM, Izenberg PH. Subperiosteal brow and midface lifts. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1995; 19: 59-68
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Adamson PA, Dahiya R, Litner J. Midface effects of the deep-plane vs. the superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication face-lift. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2007; 9: 9-11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar