Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Офтальмология / Английские материалы / Advanced Surgical Facial Rejuvenation_Erian, Shiffman_2011.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
28.03.2026
Размер:
49.82 Mб
Скачать

418

R. Ozdemir

proposed to be major advantages. However, the lifting of the facial structures superiorly in one vector and the alteration of the anatomic localization of all the structures for repositioning of the facial fat pads correctly is a conflict to be illuminated in the future. Lower eyelid blepharoplasty combined with the same incision is claimed to result in fewer complications, despite the fact that restricted release and fixation of the face-lift flap could have negative effects on the blepharoplasty and face-lift in the long term. The anatomic regions of the face should be considered separately and the surgical procedures should be applied according to the distinct properties of these regions. The author has accomplished these techniques more successfully in selected and exceptional patients recently.

The similar properties of the skin and SMAS are revealed by anatomic studies. The attachments of the mimetic muscles to the skin and subcutaneous tissue in the nasolabial region constitute the nasolabial fold. Because of the redistribution of the cheek fat pad without any alteration in the skin composition and while maintaining the projections of surface landmarks within the cheek mass during smiling, SMAS plication for repositioning of the fat pads, rather than SMAS mobilization, is sufficient. The plication also increases SMAS stability and resistance and, in some instances, Vicryl mesh use is reported. The vectors of plication should be planned perpendicular to the relaxation of the SMAS by the mimetic muscles, so that repositioning of the fat pads is accomplished in addition to the strong stabilization of the SMAS, meanwhile reestablishing the contour of the nasolabial fold. The plication or Vicryl mesh use in the middle cheek region is efficient in accordance with the delicate and loose structure of the SMAS. The rigid and tight property of SMAS in the parotid region prevents excessive relaxation [32].

The dissection in the new localizations of the retaining ligaments of the face should be held deeper, leaving more subcutaneous tissue in the face-lift flap, and the figure-of-eight or continuous suturing techniques with colorless 5–0 propylene could decrease the possible irregularities in the soft tissue and dimpling. The SMAS plication and restabilization of the retaining ligaments of face are necessary for restoration of the normal anatomic structures of the face [32].

The development of SMAS surgery revealed the subperiosteal approach, allowing the repositioning of the ligaments of the middle cheek over the periosteum of the zygoma. However, retaining ligaments may cause some interior difficulties; first of all the mobilization of the vertical limb of the L is not possible, because it is formed by the masseteric fascia rather than the periost. Second, restricted repositioning of the medial cheek and nasolabial fold was encountered because of insufficient tension over the unblocked periosteum of the middle cheek region.

While knotting each suture, the probable dimples on the skin are watched. If there is a dimple that probably appeared because the traction is too wide or vertical or the suture is placed too superficial, the suture is changed. The fundamentals of face-lift surgery should include the fixation parallel to the natural anatomic ligaments unrestricting the functional results. The SMAS indicates various properties throughout the regions of face and is strengthened with vertical retaining ligaments including the deep fibrils of the reticula cutis.

The description of the zygomatic and masseteric retaining ligaments of the cheek supports extended SMAS face-lift surgery with the function and the localization of the retaining ligaments taken into consideration in the mobilization of the flaps.

For this relief, dissection underlies the expanded SMAS and composite techniques. The principle of fixation at the middle cheek region instead of the preauricular region is proposed with the help of the better understanding of the localization of the retaining ligaments and the deep attachments that form a mobile medial cheek and a less mobile part laterally [10, 11].

36.7Postoperative Care and Complications

To prevent dimples, the dissection should be deep and eight sutures are placed instead of one by one. The dimples caused by postoperative edema disappear in 2–4 weeks and this period decreases by soft massage on this region. The probable tension of the skin flap in preauricular region is reduced by SMAS

36 Anatomicohistologic Study of the Retaining Ligaments of the Face

419

plication and flatting of retaining ligaments and so the expanded skin can be better contoured. It provides a more reliable dicession plane because the Sub-SMAS dicession is not made. According to observations, blepharoplasty is more useful in terms of midface restoration. Face-lift with blepharoplasty should be kept in mind to be applied for appropriate cases. The risk of hematoma can be prevented by a good hemostasis, an annular 5–8F axiom drain on the face-lift flap region,

and a soft dressing that doesn’t affect the viability of the skin flap. When no sub-SMAS dicession is applied, the recovery of a pathology in the facial nerve branches will be in 4–6 weeks, specifically in the mandibular branch region, if there is no action.

With this technique, the reposition of the facial fat pad, strengthening of the SMAS, fixation of the retaining ligaments, and tension of the skin flap can be supplied (Figs. 36.1936.21) [32].

a1

a2

b1

b2

Fig. 36.19 (a) Preoperative patient. (b) Eighteen months after surgery

420

R. Ozdemir

Fig. 36.20 (a) Preoperative

a1

patient. (b) Thirteen months

 

after surgery

 

b1

a2

b2

36 Anatomicohistologic Study of the Retaining Ligaments of the Face

421

Fig. 36.21 (a) Preoperative

a1

a2

patient. (b) Six months

 

 

after surgery

b1

b2

References

1.Rees TD, Aston SJ, Thorne CH. Blepharoplasty and facialplasty. In: McCarthy JG, editor. McCarthy plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1990. p. 2358–414.

2. Connell BF, Marten TJ. Facial rejuvenation: face lift. In: Cohen M, editor. Mastery of plastic and reconstructive surgery. Boston: Little, Brown & Company; 1994. p. 1873–902.

3.Owsley JQ, Alpert BS. Facial rejuvenation in men. In: Cohen M, editor. Mastery of plastic and reconstructive

surgery. Boston: Little, Brown & Company; 1994.

p. 1902–10.

4.Thorne CH, Aston SJ. Aesthetic surgery of the aging face. In: Aston SJ, Beasley RW, Thorne CH, editors. Grabb and Smith’s plastic surgery. 5th ed. Philadelphia: LippincottRaven; 1997. p. 633–49.

422

R. Ozdemir

5.Aston SJ, Thorne CH, Rees TD. Anatomy and pathogenesis of the aging face. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 662–72.

6.Aston SJ, Thorne CH. Contemporary rhytidectomy. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 722–31.

7.Hamra ST. Composite rhytidectomy. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 722–31.

8.Stuzin JM, Baker TJ, Baker TM. Refinements in face lifting: enhanced facial contour using vicryl mesh incorporated into SMAS fixation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 105(1):290–301.

9.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(3): 441–9.

10.Mendelson BC. SMAS fixation to the facial skeleton: rationale and results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(7): 1834–42.

11.Mendelson BC. Surgery of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system: principles of release, vectors, and fixation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(6):1545–52.

12.Owsley JQ. Superficial musculoaponeurotic system platysma face lift. In: Dudley H, Carter D, Russell RC, editors. Operative surgery. London: Butterworth; 1986.

13.Barton FE. The SMAS and the nasolabial fold. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(6):1054–7.

14.Keller GS, Cray J. Suprafibromuscular facelifting with periosteal suspension of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system and fat pad of Bichat rotation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122(4):377–84.

15.Cardenas Camarena L, Gonzalez LE. Multiple, combined plications of the SMASplatysma complex: breaking down the face-aging vectors. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(4): 1093–100.

16.Gosain AK, Yousif NJ, Madiedo G, Larson DL, Matloub HS, Sanger JR. Surgical anatomy of the SMAS: a reinvestigation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;92(7):1254–63.

17.Rees TD. The classic operation. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 683–707.

18.Byrd HS, Andochick SE. The deep temporal lift: a multiplanar, lateral brow, temporal, and upper face lift. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;97(5):928–37.

19.Williams LP et al. Head and neck. In: Gray’s anatomy. 37th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1992.

20.Gosling JA, Harris PF, Humpherson JR, Whitmore I, Willan PLT. Head and neck. Human Anatomy Coloring Book. Churchill Livingstone; 1996.

21.Har-Shai Y, Bodner SR, Egozy-Golan D, Lindenbaum ES, Ben Izhak O, Mitz V, et al. Mechanical properties and microstructure of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98(1):59–70.

22.Noone RB. Suture suspension malarplasty with SMAS plication and modified SMASectomy: a simplified approach to midface lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(3): 792–803.

23.de Vasconcellos JJ Accioli, Britto JA, Henin D, Vacher C. The fascial planes of the temple and face: an enbloc anatomical study and a plea for consistency. Br J Plast Surg. 2003;56(7):623–9.

24.Gassner HG, Rafii A, Young A, Murakami C, Moe KS, Larrabee WF. Surgical anatomy of the face. implication for modern face-lift techniques. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2008;10(1):9–19.

25.Hamra ST. The zygorbicular dissection in composite rhytidectomy: an ideal midface plane. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(5):1646–57.

26.Parry IR, SW BCL, Almand J. The great auricular nerve revisited: pertinent anatomy for SMAS-platysma rhytidectomy. Ann Plast Surg. 1991;27(1):44–8.

27.Hagerty RC. Central suspension technique of the midface. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;96(3):728–30.

28.Byrd HS. The extended browlift. Clin Plast Surg. 1997;24(2):233–46.

29.Mendelson BC, Freeman ME, Wu W, Huggins RJ. Surgical anatomy of the lower face: the premasseter space, the jowl, and the labiomandibular fold. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(2):185–95.

30.Stuzin JM, Baker TJ. Aging face and neck. In: Mathes JS, editor. Mathes plastic surgery. The head and neck, part 1. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2006. p. 159–213.

31.Furnas DW. The retaining ligaments of the cheek. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;83:11.

32.Ozdemir R, Kilinç H, Unlü RE, Uysal AC, Sensöz O, Baran CN. Anatomicohistologic study of the retaining ligaments of the face and use in face lift: retaining ligament correction and SMAS plication. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(4):1134–47; discussion 1148–49.

33.Furnas DW. Strategies for nasolabial levitation. Clin Plast Surg. 1995;22(2):265–78.

34.McGregor M. Face lift techniques. Presented to the annual meeting of the California Society of Plastic Surgeons, Yosemite, 1959.

35.Baker TJ, Stuzin JM. Personal technique of face lifting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(2):502–8.

36.Gamboa GM, de La Torre JI, Vasconez LO. Surgical anatomy of the midface as applied to facial rejuvenation. Ann Plast Surg. 2004;52(3):240–5.

37.Barton FE, Gyimesi IM. Anatomy of the nasolabial fold. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(5):1276–80.

38.Fulton JE. Simultaneous face lifting and skin resurfacing. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(7):2480–9.

39.Marinetti CJ. The lower muscular balance of the face used to lift labial commissures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(4): 1153–62.

40.Little JW. Hiding the posterior scar in rhytidectomy: the omega incision. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(1): 259–72.

41.Paul MD, Calvert JW, Evans GR. The evolution of the midface lift in aesthetic plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(6):1809–27.

42.Whetzel TP, Mathes SJ. The arterial supply of the face lift flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(2):480–6.

43.Skoog T. Plastic surgery: new methods and refinements. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1974.

36 Anatomicohistologic Study of the Retaining Ligaments of the Face

423

44.Huggins RJ, Freeman ME, Kerr JB, Mendelson BC. Histologic and ultrastructural evaluation of sutures used for surgical fixation of the SMAS. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2007;31(6):719–24.

45.Aston SJ, Thorne CH, Rees TD. History. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 658–61.

46.Aston SJ, Thorne CH, Rees TD. Preoperative preparation and evaluation. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors.

Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 673–7.

47.Herbert JT. Anesthesia for cosmetic surgery. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 678–81.

48.Rees TD, Aston SJ, Thorne CH. Postoperative considerations and complications. In: Rees TD, LaTrenta GS, editors. Aesthetic plastic surgery. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1994. p. 740–56.