Limited Delamination Modifications to the Extended Deep Plane Rhytidectomy: An Anatomical Basis for Improved Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study introduces variations of a limited delamination approach to the deep plane face- and necklift. Objectives: To report surgeons’ perceptions of limited delamination deep plane rhytidectomy, define the anatomical basis to support these modifications, and report complication rates. Methods: This retrospective multi-institutional chart review study of patients undergoing a modified classical deep plane face- and necklift. Surgeons’ perception of outcomes and self-reported complications were collected. Results: In total, 3964 patients having undergone face- and necklift with six surgeons being included. Most patients were female (87.9%) with an age range of 31–83 years (mean 58 years). Most were primary procedures (2672/3964; 67.4%) with a median follow-up of 425 days (range 21–5470). Preliminary surgeon experience demonstrated increased ease of flap management, improved biomechanics, smaller perceived rates of skin discoloration, and telangiectasia of the skin and lower revisions rate ( n = 11; 0.8%). Complication rates were low for hematoma ( n = 24; 1.9%) and seroma requiring needle aspiration ( n = 26; 2%) and minor infection ( n = 18; 1.4%). Conclusions: A multicenter surgeon experience with the limited delamination extended deep plane rhytidectomy is based on anatomical evidence and demonstrates low complication rates and surgeon-perceived improved long-term outcomes. Prospective comparative outcomes of these evolving techniques are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".