This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Cosmetic Surgery/ Procedures  • Alert me on articles by topic

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8:191-192.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The article¹ in this issue represents a commendable attempt to shed some light on the controversy regarding superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) vs deep-plane rhytidectomy procedures. Over the years, attempts have been made to shed light on this controversy.^2-5

Let me begin with the final sentence in the conclusion of the article: "Although this study provides only a small piece of a puzzle, we believe that these intraoperative findings support our continuing experience of a natural and lasting panfacial enhancement achieved using our modified deep-plane face-lift technique."^1(p190) Let us now look at the article to see if this conclusion is justified.

First, what did the authors do? They took a series of patients who had agreed to undergo deep-plane face-lifts. After making an appropriate face-lift incision on each hemiface, they elevated the skin for approximately 3 cm in front of and behind the ear. Through this incision and this elevation, they . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Ferdinand F. Becker, MD

RELATED ARTICLES

Limited vs Extended Face-lift Techniques: Objective Analysis of Intraoperative Results
Jason A. Litner and Peter A. Adamson
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8(3):186-190.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Deep-Plane Technique
Frank M. Kamer and Alexander Markarian
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2006;8(3):193-194.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT