A systematic review of comparison of efficacy and complication rates among face-lift techniques

Suzie Chang, Andrea Pusic, Rod J. Rohrich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The ideal face lift has the longest efficacy, the fewest complications, and ultimately, the highest patient satisfaction. With so many different techniques, there exists a need to make this comparison and to establish which approaches may work best in various groups. To date, there has been no systematic review to study the efficacy and complication rates among different face-lift techniques. This study aims to make this comparison. Methods: A systematic search of the English language literature listed in the MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to November of 2009 with Daily Update), PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases yielded trials on comparison of different face-lift techniques in their efficacy and complication rates. All relevant articles' reference sections were studied for additional relevant publications. Results: The keyword search yielded 39 articles. Eighteen more articles were retrieved from reference sections of relevant articles. Only 10 articles made a direct comparison of efficacy between face-lift techniques, and only five articles made a direct comparison of complications between face-lift techniques. Conclusions: Although this systematic review revealed a lack of quality data in comparing the efficacy and safety among different face-lift techniques, it is important to review and pool the existing studies to improve patient outcomes. This analysis has also shown the need for better studies, especially randomized, prospective, controlled studies, and a need for a standardized method of efficacy analysis and patient-reported outcomes measures to allow objective comparison of face-lift techniques.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)423-433
Number of pages11
JournalPlastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume127
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint

Rhytidoplasty
MEDLINE
Patient Satisfaction
PubMed
Publications
Language
Databases
Prospective Studies
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

A systematic review of comparison of efficacy and complication rates among face-lift techniques. / Chang, Suzie; Pusic, Andrea; Rohrich, Rod J.

In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 127, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 423-433.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chang, Suzie ; Pusic, Andrea ; Rohrich, Rod J. / A systematic review of comparison of efficacy and complication rates among face-lift techniques. In: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2011 ; Vol. 127, No. 1. pp. 423-433.
@article{fcd017e5d6fe421fababf275677ba408,
title = "A systematic review of comparison of efficacy and complication rates among face-lift techniques",
abstract = "Background: The ideal face lift has the longest efficacy, the fewest complications, and ultimately, the highest patient satisfaction. With so many different techniques, there exists a need to make this comparison and to establish which approaches may work best in various groups. To date, there has been no systematic review to study the efficacy and complication rates among different face-lift techniques. This study aims to make this comparison. Methods: A systematic search of the English language literature listed in the MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to November of 2009 with Daily Update), PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases yielded trials on comparison of different face-lift techniques in their efficacy and complication rates. All relevant articles' reference sections were studied for additional relevant publications. Results: The keyword search yielded 39 articles. Eighteen more articles were retrieved from reference sections of relevant articles. Only 10 articles made a direct comparison of efficacy between face-lift techniques, and only five articles made a direct comparison of complications between face-lift techniques. Conclusions: Although this systematic review revealed a lack of quality data in comparing the efficacy and safety among different face-lift techniques, it is important to review and pool the existing studies to improve patient outcomes. This analysis has also shown the need for better studies, especially randomized, prospective, controlled studies, and a need for a standardized method of efficacy analysis and patient-reported outcomes measures to allow objective comparison of face-lift techniques.",
author = "Suzie Chang and Andrea Pusic and Rohrich, {Rod J.}",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f95c08",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "423--433",
journal = "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0032-1052",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of comparison of efficacy and complication rates among face-lift techniques

AU - Chang, Suzie

AU - Pusic, Andrea

AU - Rohrich, Rod J.

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Background: The ideal face lift has the longest efficacy, the fewest complications, and ultimately, the highest patient satisfaction. With so many different techniques, there exists a need to make this comparison and to establish which approaches may work best in various groups. To date, there has been no systematic review to study the efficacy and complication rates among different face-lift techniques. This study aims to make this comparison. Methods: A systematic search of the English language literature listed in the MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to November of 2009 with Daily Update), PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases yielded trials on comparison of different face-lift techniques in their efficacy and complication rates. All relevant articles' reference sections were studied for additional relevant publications. Results: The keyword search yielded 39 articles. Eighteen more articles were retrieved from reference sections of relevant articles. Only 10 articles made a direct comparison of efficacy between face-lift techniques, and only five articles made a direct comparison of complications between face-lift techniques. Conclusions: Although this systematic review revealed a lack of quality data in comparing the efficacy and safety among different face-lift techniques, it is important to review and pool the existing studies to improve patient outcomes. This analysis has also shown the need for better studies, especially randomized, prospective, controlled studies, and a need for a standardized method of efficacy analysis and patient-reported outcomes measures to allow objective comparison of face-lift techniques.

AB - Background: The ideal face lift has the longest efficacy, the fewest complications, and ultimately, the highest patient satisfaction. With so many different techniques, there exists a need to make this comparison and to establish which approaches may work best in various groups. To date, there has been no systematic review to study the efficacy and complication rates among different face-lift techniques. This study aims to make this comparison. Methods: A systematic search of the English language literature listed in the MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to November of 2009 with Daily Update), PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases yielded trials on comparison of different face-lift techniques in their efficacy and complication rates. All relevant articles' reference sections were studied for additional relevant publications. Results: The keyword search yielded 39 articles. Eighteen more articles were retrieved from reference sections of relevant articles. Only 10 articles made a direct comparison of efficacy between face-lift techniques, and only five articles made a direct comparison of complications between face-lift techniques. Conclusions: Although this systematic review revealed a lack of quality data in comparing the efficacy and safety among different face-lift techniques, it is important to review and pool the existing studies to improve patient outcomes. This analysis has also shown the need for better studies, especially randomized, prospective, controlled studies, and a need for a standardized method of efficacy analysis and patient-reported outcomes measures to allow objective comparison of face-lift techniques.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651299442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78651299442&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f95c08

DO - 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f95c08

M3 - Article

C2 - 21200240

AN - SCOPUS:78651299442

VL - 127

SP - 423

EP - 433

JO - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0032-1052

IS - 1

ER -