+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Long-term Analysis of Lip Augmentation With Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System (SMAS) Tissue Transfer Following Biplanar Extended SMAS Rhytidectomy

Long-term Analysis of Lip Augmentation With Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System (SMAS) Tissue Transfer Following Biplanar Extended SMAS Rhytidectomy

JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery 19(1): 34-39

To our knowledge, long-term, objective results of lip augmentation using superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) tissue transfer beyond 1 year have not been previously described. To evaluate the efficacy, longevity, and safety of lip augmentation using SMAS tissue transfer. A retrospective single-blind cohort study was designed to evaluate all patients who underwent surgical lip augmentation using SMAS following rhytidectomy between January 1, 2000, and November, 16, 2015, at a private facial plastic surgery practice in Birmingham, Alabama. Preoperative photographs of each patient served as controls and were compared with postoperative photographs at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after lip augmentation. A total of 104 images (from 26 individual patients) were reviewed by 12 blinded observers using a validated lip augmentation grading scale. Lip augmentation using SMAS. Median lip volumes of all patients at each postoperative interval (3 months, 1 year, and 5 years) compared with preoperative lip volumes. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative complications. A total of 423 patients were identified who underwent surgical lip augmentation using SMAS. Sixty patients with approximately 5 years or more of postoperative photographs were reviewed for complications. Twenty-six patients had 3-month, 1-year, and 5-year postoperative follow-up photographs and were included in the photographic evaluation. The mean age of these patients at the time of surgery was 54.6 years (range, 41.2-80.6 years. Fifty-nine of the 60 patients (98.3%) were female. Two of 60 patients (3.3%) with 5 years or more of postoperative follow-up developed complications requiring intervention. Both the superior lip and the inferior lip showed statistically significant increases in volume at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years (P ≤ .004 for the superior lip after 5 years; P ≤ .001 for all other comparisons) after SMAS lip augmentation. The greatest median increase was observed in the superior lip at 3 months, while the smallest median increase was observed for the inferior lip at 5 years. The degree of increase in median volume seemed to weaken slightly over time, but remained statistically significant even at 5 years. SMAS lip augmentation is an effective and safe method for lip augmentation that can yield natural, long-lasting results with minimal risk. The degree of augmentation tends to fade slightly over time, but remains significant for at least 5 years postoperatively. 3.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058232449

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27684045

DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2016.1145

Related references

Discoplasty with autogenous superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) flap in reconstruction of the temporomandibular joint combined with cervicofacial rhytidectomy. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 38(4): 346-349, 2000

Is the SMAS Flap Facelift Safe? A Comparison of Complications Between the Sub-SMAS Approach Versus the Subcutaneous Approach With or Without SMAS Plication in Aesthetic Rhytidectomy at an Academic Institution. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 39(6): 870-876, 2015

Biplanar superficial musculoaponeurotic system imbrication rhytidectomy. Facial Plastic Surgery 30(4): 380-393, 2015

The viscoelastic properties of the SMAS and its clinical translation: firm support for the high-SMAS rhytidectomy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 128(3): 757-764, 2011

Viscoelastic properties of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS): a microscopic and mechanical study. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 21(4): 219-224, 1997

Variation's in the use of SMAS (superficial musculoaponeurotic system) to prevent Frey's syndrome after parotidectomy. International Surgery 81(2): 174-176, 1996

Is there a difference? A prospective study comparing lateral and standard SMAS face lifts with extended SMAS and composite rhytidectomies. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 98(7): 1135-43; Discussion 1144-7, 1996

Extended SMAS dissection as a modified approach to rhytidectomy. Zhonghua Zheng Xing Shao Shang Wai Ke Za Zhi 12(6): 444-446, 1996

Superficial fascia rhytidectomy. A restoration of the SMAS with control of the cervicomental angle. Clinics in Plastic Surgery 10(3): 449-478, 1983

The "lazy S-shaped" plication of the SMAS-platysma musculoaponeurotic system: a 10-year review. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 24(6): 433-439, 2001

SMAS rhytidectomy versus deep plane rhytidectomy: an objective comparison. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 102(3): 878-881, 1998

SMAS in rhytidectomy. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 6(2): 69-74, 1982

Comparison of SMAS plication with SMAS imbrication in face lifting. Laryngoscope 92(8 Pt 1): 901-912, 1982

A Technique Using the Suction-Assisted Endoscope Sheath to Transfer SMAS for Lip Augmentation. Aesthetic Surgery Journal 37(8): Np90-Np93, 2017

SMAS flap rhytidectomy. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 13(2): 108, 2011