192 1 year, Joseph published an article saying that he completed a total rhytidectomy in 19 12.
According to Gonzalez-ulloa's records, at the beginning of the 20th century, Kantnell (1902), Cabanis (1903) and others had already performed skin rhytidectomy. Ch.c. Miller (1907) recorded a wider range of rhytidectomy with higher accuracy. Therefore, some people think that the founder of total rhytidectomy should be Ch.C.Miller. However, the surgical methods of that period are unacceptable to modern medicine, such as implanting foreign bodies under aging skin, reducing fat and opening wrinkles.
Hall. The surgical incision used by nder is somewhat similar to modern rhytidectomy. That is, make a vertical incision in front of the ear and pull the cut skin back from the auricle to the neck and nape. At that time, the operation was mainly skin excision, and sometimes some fat was removed on the basis of skin excision of chin or neck.
1926，Na？ L think the scar will not be obvious after two operations. He performed oval skin incision on forehead and temporal hairline, and sometimes he also used half-moon skin incision. However, in the early stage of operation, its deficiency lies in the incomplete or insufficient skin peeling. Bames, Jseqh, Boargaet and others further improved the above total rhytidectomy.
The technical evolution of total rhytidectomy has experienced a development process from simple to complex, and the separation surface has gone from shallow to deep. In the 1940s, total rhytidectomy was formally carried out in the clinical work of plastic surgery. After several changes, in the era of Mario Gonzalez-Uroya, rhytidectomy was generally established.
Since 1969 first put forward the reduction of deep structure, Tess, Mitz and Peyronie further put forward the concept of SMAS (superficial muscle aponeurosis system) in 1976. Later, it was recognized as the second generation wrinkle removal surgery.
Chamra (1992) and Gao Jingheng (1994) divided the development of rhytidectomy into three generations, namely, the first generation subcutaneous separation lifting, the second generation subcutaneous separation lifting with superficial aponeurosis system (SMAS), deep plane lifting rhytidectomy and the third generation compound rhytidectomy. According to the depth of the separation surface, some people call subperiosteal rhytidectomy the third generation rhytidectomy.
Tessier recommended an orthopedic subperiosteal lift at the 7th International Plastic Surgery Conference on 1979.
In 1984 and 1988, Dsillauis and Santana put forward the experience and theory of subperiosteal rhytidectomy. It is considered that this is the third generation of rhytidectomy, with 12% serious complications of frontal branch paralysis of facial nerve, which is not desirable.
From 65438 to 0988, Psillakis reported the experience and theory of 105 cases of subperiosteal separation rhytidectomy.
Furnas reported in 65438-0989 that cutting off zygomatic arch ligament, platysma auricle ligament and mandibular ligament can improve the effect of rhytidectomy.
1990 Hamra reported 403 cases of deep rhytidectomy. The SMAS rhytidectomy technique of Mitz was developed, which solved the problem that the nasolabial groove was too deep in other surgical methods, and this technique was proposed as the third generation rhytidectomy.
199 1 year, Antonic and Maillard reported 42 cases and 250 cases of improved periosteal rhytidectomy respectively.
Ramire et al reported 34 cases and 2 13 cases of subperiosteal rhytidectomy of zygomatic arch respectively. In the same year, Hamra recommended the new concept of compound rhytidectomy on the basis of deep rhytidectomy, reported the experience of 167 cases with few complications, and reiterated the concept of the third generation rhytidectomy.
However, in 1993, Antoio reported the experience of subperiosteal rhytidectomy through 2 13 cases and preauricular incision, but two of them developed persistent frontalis muscle branch paralysis, and considered subperiosteal rhytidectomy as a milestone in the development of rhytidectomy technology. However, in Maillard's evaluation report, it is mentioned that the injury of frontal branch of facial nerve is inevitable. So what is the third generation rhytidectomy, compound rhytidectomy or subperiosteal rhytidectomy (subperiosteal rhytidectomy), is still a controversial issue today.