Secondary Rhytidectomy: Comprehensive Review and Current Concepts

Revision Rhytidectomy: Pearls and Pitfalls

While rhytidectomy can yield remarkable results, some patients may subsequently require revision rhytidectomy due to either unsatisfactory outcomes from primary surgery or the natural aging process many years later. Like most other secondary plastic surgical procedures, revision rhytidectomy is a complex undertaking and fraught with potential pitfalls. This can be attributable to natural or postsurgical alterations that can occur with the facial skin, superficial musculoaponeurotic system/platysma muscle, and/or facial nerve landmarks. Additionally, complications such as cobra neck deformity, pixie ear deformity, and synkinesis can add an extra level of complexity to revisional surgery. Furthermore, as more surgeons are performing deep-plane facelifts and more aggressive neck procedures, the risks are further amplified in revisional surgery. In this article, we review the challenges that a facelift surgeon may face when performing revision rhytidectomy and the technical considerations to overcome these obstacles.

Analysis of the Outcome of Reoperative Face Lifts Using Sub-SMAS Techniques

BACKGROUND

Reoperative face lift can be technically more demanding than primary face lift because of altered anatomy and scarred tissue plane. This study was carried out to analyze the outcome of reoperative face lift using sub-superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) techniques, including facial nerve injury.

METHODS

Seventy reoperative face lifts using sub-SMAS techniques were studied. Data analysis includes the patients' demographic information, the interval between the previous face lift and the reoperative face lift, intraoperative findings of the SMAS-platysma anatomy, complications, and rate of revision. A separate group of 180 primary face lifts using sub-SMAS techniques during the same period was analyzed for the incidence of facial nerve injury only.

RESULTS

Intraoperative findings in the reoperative group consist of anatomical changes in the SMAS-platysma in 82.9 percent of the cases, including increased fibrosis, changes in thickness, limited movement, and increased adhesion on the undersurface. Sub-SMAS dissection was completed in 137 hemifaces. Complication consists of seroma (1.4 percent), delayed healing (1.4 percent), and temporary facial nerve injury (7.1 percent), which was not correlated with increased fibrosis or adhesion under the SMAS-platysma. The rate of revision within 18 months was 11.4 percent. There was a 2.2 percent incidence of temporary facial nerve injury in the primary face-lift group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sub-SMAS techniques, with few exceptions, were successfully used in a series of reoperative face lifts. Temporary facial nerve injury was the most frequent complication. Satisfactory outcome was obtained in all the cases. The incidence of facial nerve injury was higher than in primary face lift using sub-SMAS techniques.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Revision Facelift and Neck Lift

Facial rejuvenation procedures have become more commonly performed due to an increasing elderly population and greater general public acceptance. As a result, patients are now increasingly undergoing secondary and tertiary rhytidectomies to treat natural aging and/or to correct complications from prior procedures. Revision face and neck lifts are more complex by nature of the procedure and require a comprehensive preoperative assessment for enhanced outcomes. In this review, we discuss the preoperative evaluation, surgical challenges encountered, primary face and neck lift deformities, and their surgical management for patients undergoing secondary face and neck lifts.

Revision and Secondary Facelift: Problems Frequently Encountered

Revision facelift is a very challenging operation. The goal of our study was to examine the most common problems that the facelift surgeon has to face in a revision case and to suggest ways of solving them.

Methods

A review of all patients from 2012 to 2017 in whom rhytidectomy was performed by the senior author was conducted.

Results

During the 5-year study period, the author performed 552 face lifts. After the review to confirm revision procedures, a total of 72 revision facelifts were found. On reviewing the most common problems encountered in our facelifts, we found that in addition to the stigmata of the primary facelift, which are thoroughly analyzed in our article, a new type of stigmata has been added nowadays to the revision facelift-that of the various noninvasive interventions that patients undergo after their first facelift, in their effort to postpone or avoid a second operation. In all the abovementioned cases, the surgeon has to modify his basic surgical plan accordingly, to be able to improve or solve all of those problems during the revision surgery.

Conclusions

The modern facelift surgeon often has to face much more than the stigmata of the primary facelift or the natural aging process. Thus, he/she should be appropriately trained to solve any problem we might encounter in a revision case.

Getting Better Results in Facelifting

The facelift has significantly evolved over the past several decades. What was once considered a skin only operation is now a sophisticated, elegant procedure that requires meticulous preoperative analysis, understanding of underlying anatomically based aging changes, and extreme attention to detail. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, 125,697 facelifts were performed in 2017. It is not surprising that given these advances that facial rejuvenation surgery is still a very common procedure with a high degree of patient satisfaction despite the increase in nonsurgical facial aging treatments. With an improved understanding of facial anatomy including the facial retaining ligaments and intervening superficial and deep fat compartments, the modern facelift requires an anatomically targeted approach. Furthermore, the modern facelift surgeon must achieve consistently excellent results with reasonably little downtime while being aware of methods to improve the safety of this popular elective procedure. Hematoma is the most common complication after rhytidectomy with an incidence between 0.9% and 9%, with a higher incidence in males. Other potential complications include seroma, nerve injury, skin flap necrosis, siaolocele as a consequence of submandibular gland debulking, and skin flap rhytid and hairline distortion. This review aims to discuss safe, consistent, and reproducible methods to achieve success with facelift.