FACELIFT.STUDIO
Home / Science / Deep-plane facelift

Deep-plane facelift

A deep-plane facelift lifts the skin, fat and SMAS as one flap after releasing the ligaments that hold the cheek down, instead of lifting skin and SMAS separately. It dates to Hamra's 1990 paper and is now the most-used facelift among surveyed facial plastic surgeons, though head-to-head evidence of longer-lasting results is limited.

Origin

  • Hamra 1990: a Skoog-type sub-SMAS dissection extended over the zygomaticus muscles and past the nasolabial fold, creating a musculocutaneous flap of skin, cheek fat and platysma; 403 patients (PMID 2359803).
  • Hamra 1992, composite rhytidectomy: adds the orbicularis oculi to the flap so platysma, cheek fat and orbicularis move with the skin; 167 patients (PMID 1615067).
  • Zygorbicular dissection as the midface plane in composite rhytidectomy (PMID 9774027).
  • Kamer 1996: 100 consecutive deep-plane lifts, no hematoma beneath the cheek flap, 97% of patients pleased at 6 months (PMID 8554742).
  • Kamer and Frankel 1998: tuck rate 11.4% after SMAS lifts against 3.3% after deep-plane lifts in 634 patients (PMID 9727459).
  • Hamra 2002, 20 patients from the 1990 series: SMAS repositioning lasted longer than nasolabial fold improvement; malar fat gains at 1-2 years were lost long term (PMID 12172164).

Extended deep plane (Jacono)

  • MADE vertical facelift (minimal access deep plane extended), 153 patients: zygomatico-cutaneous ligament release plus lateral platysmal myotomy; revision 3.9%, hematoma 1.9%, temporary nerve injury 1.3% (PMID 22065880).
  • Composite rotational flap for the jawline, 89 patients: gonial area volume +3.5 cc; mandibular defining line 7.1 cm to 9.8 cm at 19 months (PMID 30418482).
  • Platysma hammock flap, 123 patients: platysmal banding, skin laxity and gland visibility scores fell at 18-21 months; satisfaction 88.9%-96.2% (PMID 35446382).
  • Meta-analysis of 183 studies: temporary nerve injury highest with high lateral SMAS (1.85%) and composite (1.52%); major hematoma deep plane 1.22% (OR 1.67 vs plication); permanent injury did not differ by technique (PMID 30768122).

Current practice (2021-2026)

  • AAFPRS survey, 150 surgeons: 90% perform deep-plane facelifts; surgeons under 20 years in practice more likely to (P = .04); longevity not associated with deep plane (P = .3); higher nerve injury associated with deep plane and frequent gland reduction (PMID 41251721).
  • Limited delamination extended deep plane, 6 surgeons, 3,964 patients: hematoma 1.9%, seroma 2%, revision 0.8% (PMID 39072376).
  • Vector analysis, 71 patients: mean SMAS lift vector 70.8 degrees; women more vertical than men (71.3 vs 65.4) (PMID 38657095).
  • Mastoid crevasse fixation: +8.1 mm gonial depth (PMID 37767973).
  • Complete platysma suspension with vertical midline platysmaplasty (PMID 39212629).
  • Asian patients, 61 deep-plane lifts: 98% satisfied; no hematoma; neurapraxia 1.6% (PMID 40183553).
  • Deep-plane anatomy and nomenclature (PMID 38354840).
  • Facial nerve considerations: temporary palsy risk appears to rise as dissection extends (PMID 38198817).

Anatomy behind the plane

  • 50 cadaver heads: nerve branches are embedded within the deep fascia; dissection must stay in its most superficial level (PMID 37036327).
  • 50 cadaver heads: no-release lifts drag retaining fibers and rely on fixation; full release with redraping preserves deep fascial architecture (PMID 37747400).
  • Midface deep fascia forms the floor of the deep plane (PMID 36261112).

Deep plane against SMAS: comparative evidence

  • Split-face randomized study, 21 patients, 1996: extended SMAS and composite sides looked better on the table; no detectable difference at 6 and 12 months (PMID 8942899).
  • Identical twins, four techniques including composite, 10-year photographs (PMID 19319071).
  • Meta-analysis 2025, 21 studies, 2,896 patients: satisfaction deep plane 94.4%, SMAS 87.8%; complications 17.2% and 10.3% (PMID 40801931).
  • Systematic review 2026 (Stuzin, Rohrich), 17 articles: medially based deep-plane techniques have not been shown to improve midface appearance or longevity (PMID 41100833).
  • AI age estimation, 100 deep-plane and 100 SMAS patients: no difference in estimated age reduction (PMID 42775335).
  • ABPS tracer data 2006-2021, 3,400 facelifts: SMAS plication 40%, flaps 35%, SMASectomy 22%, MACS 6%; subperiosteal 1%; skin-only 8% (PMID 38302713).

Glossary

  • Deep plane: sub-SMAS plane whose floor is the deep fascia (PMID 36261112).
  • Composite flap: skin, fat, SMAS/platysma and orbicularis lifted as one unit (PMID 1615067).
  • Extended deep plane: deep-plane release carried into the neck and jawline with platysma management (PMID 30418482).
  • Zygomatico-cutaneous ligament: cheek ligament released in the deep plane (PMID 22065880).
  • Tuck: small secondary tightening after a facelift (PMID 9727459).
  • Mastoid crevasse: mastoid fixation site for platysma suspension in deep-plane neck lifting (PMID 37767973).
  • Limited delamination: deep-plane variant with less separation of skin from the SMAS flap (PMID 39072376).

Papers

PMID First author Year Journal Title Finding
2359803 Hamra ST 1990 Plast Reconstr Surg The deep-plane rhytidectomy. Hamra: deep-plane rhytidectomy, 403 patients (landmark)
1615067 Hamra ST 1992 Plast Reconstr Surg Composite rhytidectomy. Hamra: composite rhytidectomy, 167 patients (landmark)
9774027 Hamra ST 1998 Plast Reconstr Surg The zygorbicular dissection in composite rhytidectomy: an ideal midface plane. Zygorbicular dissection for the midface (landmark)
8554742 Kamer FM 1996 Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg One hundred consecutive deep plane face-lifts. Kamer: 100 deep-plane lifts, 97% pleased (landmark)
9727459 Kamer FM 1998 Plast Reconstr Surg SMAS rhytidectomy versus deep plane rhytidectomy: an objective comparison. Tuck rate 11.4% SMAS vs 3.3% deep plane (landmark)
12172164 Hamra ST 2002 Plast Reconstr Surg A study of the long-term effect of malar fat repositioning in face lift surgery: short-term success but long-term failure. Malar fat repositioning: long-term failure (landmark)
22065880 Jacono AA 2011 Aesthet Surg J The minimal access deep plane extended vertical facelift. MADE vertical facelift, 153 patients (landmark)
30418482 Jacono AA 2019 Aesthet Surg J A Novel Extended Deep Plane Facelift Technique for Jawline Rejuvenation and Volumization. Extended deep plane jawline: +3.5 cc gonial volume
35446382 Jacono AA 2022 Aesthet Surg J The Effect of a Novel Platysma Hammock Flap During Extended Deep Plane Facelift on the Signs of Aging in the Neck. Platysma hammock flap, 123 patients
30768122 Jacono AA 2019 Aesthet Surg J A Meta-Analysis of Complication Rates Among Different SMAS Facelift Techniques. Meta-analysis 183 studies: complications by SMAS technique
41251721 Pak KY 2026 J Craniofac Surg Evaluating Facelift Outcomes and Technique Trends in the United States. AAFPRS survey: 90% perform deep plane
39072376 Roskies M 2024 Facial Plast Surg Aesthet Med Limited Delamination Modifications to the Extended Deep Plane Rhytidectomy: An Anatomical Basis for Improved Outcomes. Limited delamination, 3,964 patients
38657095 Talei B 2024 Aesthet Surg J Vectorial Analysis of Deep Plane Face and Neck Lift. Vector of lift, 71 patients
37767973 Talei B 2024 Aesthet Surg J The Mastoid Crevasse and 3-Dimensional Considerations in Deep Plane Neck Lifting. Mastoid crevasse fixation
39212629 Timberlake AT 2025 Plast Reconstr Surg Complete Platysma Muscle Suspension in Deep-Plane Face-Lift Surgery. Complete platysma suspension
40183553 Wong CH 2025 Plast Reconstr Surg Deep Plane Face Lift in Asian Patients. Deep plane in 61 Asian patients
38354840 Talei B 2024 Facial Plast Surg The Detailed Anatomy of the Deep Plane of the Face and Neck with Current Nomenclature. Deep plane anatomy and nomenclature
38198817 Azizzadeh B 2024 Facial Plast Surg Facial Nerve Considerations for the Deep Plane Facelift and Neck Lift. Facial nerve considerations in deep plane lifts
37036327 Minelli L 2024 Plast Reconstr Surg The Deep Fascia of the Head and Neck Revisited: Relationship with the Facial Nerve and Implications for Rhytidectomy. Nerve branches lie within the deep fascia
37747400 Minelli L 2024 Plast Reconstr Surg Anatomy of the Facial Glideplanes, Deep Plane Spaces, and Ligaments: Implications for Surgical and Nonsurgical Lifting Procedures. Glideplanes and release vs no-release lifting
36261112 Andretto Amodeo C 2022 Facial Plast Surg The Deep Fascia of the Infraorbital Region, Deep Plane, and Suprafibromuscular Facelift: New Anatomy for Safer Facelifting. Midface deep fascia is the deep-plane floor
8942899 Ivy EJ 1996 Plast Reconstr Surg Is there a difference? A prospective study comparing lateral and standard SMAS face lifts with extended SMAS and composite rhytidectomies. Split-face RCT: no difference at 12 months (landmark)
19319071 Alpert BS 2009 Plast Reconstr Surg Identical twin face lifts with differing techniques: a 10-year follow-up. Identical twins, four techniques, 10 years (landmark)
40801931 Khoury S 2025 Aesthetic Plast Surg The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Meta-analysis deep plane vs SMAS
41100833 Schultz KP 2026 Plast Reconstr Surg Demystifying Deep Layer Face-Lift Techniques: A Systematic Review of Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Techniques. Systematic review: deep plane not shown superior
42775335 Tan SJ 2026 Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Comparing Deep Plane and Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Facelifts Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Age Estimation. AI age estimation: no difference by technique
38302713 Stein MJ 2024 Aesthetic Plast Surg Clinical Practice Patterns in Facelift Surgery: A 15-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery. ABPS 3,400 facelifts: technique shares 2006-2021

Open questions / controversies

  • Longevity: no controlled study shows deep plane outlasts SMAS techniques (PMID 41100833, PMID 41251721).
  • Nerve risk: temporary injury higher with composite and high lateral SMAS in pooled data (PMID 30768122); association with deep plane in survey data (PMID 41251721).
  • Complication totals: 17.2% deep plane against 10.3% SMAS in a single-arm meta-analysis with heterogeneous definitions (PMID 40801931).
  • Evidence base: outcomes are mostly single-surgeon series and surgeon-rated photographs (PMID 39072376).

Papers cited on this page

Newest first.

2026
Demystifying Deep Layer Face-Lift Techniques: A Systematic Review of Superficial Musculoaponeurotic System Techniques
Schultz KP, Sherif R, Ganesh Kumar N, Stuzin JM, Rohrich RJ · Plast Reconstr Surg · Systematic Review · PMID 41100833
2025
Complete Platysma Muscle Suspension in Deep-Plane Face-Lift Surgery
Timberlake AT, Cameron Brawley C, Paul BC, Rosenberg DB · Plast Reconstr Surg · PMID 39212629
2025
Deep Plane Face Lift in Asian Patients
Wong CH, Hsieh MKH, Mendelson B · Plast Reconstr Surg · PMID 40183553
2025
The Deep Plane versus SMAS Facelift: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Khoury S, Almubarak Z, Khan H, Boldt G, Villemure-Poliquin N, Nichols AC · Aesthetic Plast Surg · Systematic Review · PMID 40801931
2024
The Mastoid Crevasse and 3-Dimensional Considerations in Deep Plane Neck Lifting
Talei B, Shauly O, Marxen T, Menon A, Gould DJ · Aesthet Surg J · PMID 37767973
2009
Identical twin face lifts with differing techniques: a 10-year follow-up
Alpert BS, Baker DC, Hamra ST, Owsley JQ, Ramirez O · Plast Reconstr Surg · PMID 19319071
1996
One hundred consecutive deep plane face-lifts
Kamer FM · Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg · PMID 8554742
1996
1992
Composite rhytidectomy
Hamra ST · Plast Reconstr Surg · PMID 1615067
1990
The deep-plane rhytidectomy
Hamra ST · Plast Reconstr Surg · PMID 2359803