Biomechanical and viscoelastic properties of skin, SMAS, and composite flaps as they pertain to rhytidectomy.

Abstract

Previous studies have focused on biomechanical and viscoelastic properties of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) flap and the skin flap lifted in traditional rhytidectomy procedures. The authors compared these two layers with the composite rhytidectomy flap to explain their clinical observations that the composite dissection allows greater tension and lateral pull to be placed on the facial and cervical flaps, with less long-term stress-relaxation and tissue creep. Eight fresh cadavers were dissected by elevating flaps on one side of the face and neck as skin and SMAS flaps and on the other side as a standard composite rhytidectomy flap. The tissue samples were tested for breaking strength, tissue tearing force, stress-relaxation, and tissue creep. For breaking strength, uniform samples were pulled at a rate of 1 inch per minute, and the stress required to rupture the tissues was measured. Tissue tearing force was measured by attaching a 3-0 suture to the tissues and pulling at the same rate as that used for breaking strength. The force required to tear the suture out of the tissues was then measured. Stress-relaxation was assessed by tensing the uniformly sized strips of tissue to 80 percent of their breaking strength, and the amount of tissue relaxation was measured at 1-minute intervals for a total of 5 minutes. This measurement is expressed as the percentage of tissue relaxation per minute. Tissue creep was assessed by using a 3-0 suture and calibrated pressure gauge attached to the facial flaps. The constant tension applied to the flaps was 80 percent of the tissue tearing force. The distance crept was measured in millimeters after 2 and 3 minutes of constant tension. Breaking strength measurements demonstrated significantly greater breaking strength of skin and composite flaps as compared with SMAS flaps (p < 0.05). No significant difference was noted between skin and composite flaps. However, tissue tearing force demonstrated that the composite flaps were able to withstand a significantly greater force as compared with both skin and SMAS flaps (p < 0.05). Stress-relaxation analysis revealed the skin flaps to have the highest degree of stress-relaxation over each of five 1-minute intervals. In contrast, the SMAS and composite flaps demonstrated a significantly lower degree of stress-relaxation over the five 1-minute intervals (p < 0.05). There was no difference noted between the SMAS flaps and composite flaps with regard to stress-relaxation. Tissue creep correlated with the stress-relaxation data. The skin flaps demonstrated the greatest degree of tissue creep, which was significantly greater than that noted for the SMAS flaps or composite flaps (p < 0.05). Comparison of facial flaps with cervical flaps revealed that cervical skin, SMAS, and composite flaps tolerated significantly greater tissue tearing forces and demonstrated significantly greater tissue creep as compared with facial skin, SMAS, and composite flaps (p < 0.05). These biomechanical studies on facial and cervical rhytidectomy flaps indicate that the skin and composite flaps are substantially stronger than the SMAS flap, allowing significantly greater tension to be applied for repositioning of the flap and surrounding subcutaneous tissues. The authors confirmed that the SMAS layer exhibits significantly less stress-relaxation and creep as compared with the skin flap, a property that has led aesthetic surgeons to incorporate the SMAS into the face lift procedure. On the basis of the authors' findings in this study, it seems that that composite flap, although composed of both the skin and SMAS, acquires the viscoelastic properties of the SMAS layer, demonstrating significantly less stress-relaxation and tissue creep as compared with the skin flap. This finding may play a role in maintaining long-term results after rhytidectomy. In addition, it is noteworthy that the cervical flaps, despite their increased strength, demonstrate significantly greater tissue creep as compared with facial flaps, suggesting earlier relaxation of the neck as compared with the face after rhytidectomy.