Literature DB >> 21358867

Analysis of the effects of subcutaneous musculoaponeurotic system facial support on the nasolabial crease.

Michael J Sundine1, Bruce F Connell.   

Abstract

The idea that traction on the subcutaneous musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) deepens the nasolabial crease has been propagated through the plastic surgery literature. This notion is contrary to the senior author's experience. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of mobilization of the SMAS on the nasolabial fold and crease. Intraoperative examination on the effect of traction on the SMAS was performed. Ten consecutive primary facelift patients underwent facelift procedures with SMAS support. Following mobilization of the SMAS, traction was placed on the SMAS without traction on the skin. In all cases, the nasolabial fold was effaced and the nasolabial crease did not deepen. The authors concluded that traction on the SMAS did not deepen the nasolabial crease.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Nasolabial crease; Nasolabial fold; SMAS

Year:  2010        PMID: 21358867      PMCID: PMC2851452     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Plast Surg        ISSN: 1195-2199


  10 in total

1.  Surgery of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system: principles of release, vectors, and fixation.

Authors:  B C Mendelson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.730

2.  Rhytidectomy and the nasolabial fold.

Authors:  F E Barton
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  The SMAS and the nasolabial fold.

Authors:  F E Barton
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  A challenge to the undefeated nasolabial folds.

Authors:  D R Millard; R T Yuan; J W Devine
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  Anatomy of the nasolabial fold: the keystone of the smiling mechanism.

Authors:  L R Rubin; Y Mishriki; G Lee
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Changes of the midface with age.

Authors:  N J Yousif
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.017

7.  An historical glimpse of the evolution of rhytidectomy.

Authors:  D L Larson
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.017

8.  The nasolabial fold: an anatomic and histologic reappraisal.

Authors:  N J Yousif; A Gosain; H S Matloub; J R Sanger; G Madiedo; D L Larson
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 4.730

9.  The nasolabial fold and the SMAS.

Authors:  N S Fuleihan
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  Comparison of SMAS plication with SMAS imbrication in face lifting.

Authors:  R C Webster; R C Smith; M J Papsidero; W W Karolow; K F Smith
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 3.325

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Total Composite Flap Facelift and the Deep-Plane Transition Zone: A Critical Consideration in SMAS-Release Midface Lifting.

Authors:  Marc Mani
Journal:  Aesthet Surg J       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 4.283

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.