Plenty of cosmetic techniques circulate on reputation alone. Dr. Andrew Jacono took a different route with his Minimal Access Deep-Plane Extended facelift, publishing formal outcomes data rather than leaving the technique’s results to word of mouth.
In 2011, Jacono’s findings appeared in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, documenting results from 153 patients who underwent the procedure. That publication gave other facial plastic surgeons a measurable reference point, something to evaluate rather than simply observe in before-and-after photographs.
What the Data Reflected
The technique itself departs from the SMAS method that has long been standard in facelift surgery. Instead of separating skin from the muscle layer and pulling it taut, Dr. Andrew Jacono’s approach repositions skin, muscle and fat together as a single unit, operating beneath the superficial musculoaponeurotic system.
Central to the procedure is the release of four facial ligaments that anchor soft tissue to bone. Once freed, descended fat pads in the midface, jawline and neck can be repositioned vertically, correcting the structural drift that causes aging rather than only smoothing the skin above it.
A Technique Still in Practice
Nearly a decade and a half after that initial publication, Jacono continues performing the procedure regularly, completing an estimated 250 extended deep-plane facelifts each year at his Manhattan practice. The consistency between his documented 2011 outcomes and his ongoing case volume suggests a technique that has held up under repeated use rather than one dependent on a single favorable dataset.
For a field where marketing claims often outpace evidence, a peer-reviewed publication with a defined patient cohort remains a meaningful distinction.
Peer review matters in cosmetic surgery precisely because so much of the field is shaped by testimonials and social media rather than documented outcomes. A published patient cohort allows other surgeons to examine methodology, complication rates and follow-up periods, rather than relying solely on a practice’s own marketing materials.
Patients researching any facial procedure are generally well served by asking whether a technique has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and if so, requesting details about the study’s size and follow-up duration before making a decision. Refer to this article to learn more.
Visit for more information about Dr. Andrew Jacono on https://www.youtube.com/c/drandrewjacono
ibbya329ut4ih024t
Share post:
Plenty of cosmetic techniques circulate on reputation alone. Dr. Andrew Jacono took a different route with his Minimal Access Deep-Plane Extended facelift, publishing formal outcomes data rather than leaving the technique’s results to word of mouth.
In 2011, Jacono’s findings appeared in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, documenting results from 153 patients who underwent the procedure. That publication gave other facial plastic surgeons a measurable reference point, something to evaluate rather than simply observe in before-and-after photographs.
What the Data Reflected
The technique itself departs from the SMAS method that has long been standard in facelift surgery. Instead of separating skin from the muscle layer and pulling it taut, Dr. Andrew Jacono’s approach repositions skin, muscle and fat together as a single unit, operating beneath the superficial musculoaponeurotic system.
Central to the procedure is the release of four facial ligaments that anchor soft tissue to bone. Once freed, descended fat pads in the midface, jawline and neck can be repositioned vertically, correcting the structural drift that causes aging rather than only smoothing the skin above it.
A Technique Still in Practice
Nearly a decade and a half after that initial publication, Jacono continues performing the procedure regularly, completing an estimated 250 extended deep-plane facelifts each year at his Manhattan practice. The consistency between his documented 2011 outcomes and his ongoing case volume suggests a technique that has held up under repeated use rather than one dependent on a single favorable dataset.
For a field where marketing claims often outpace evidence, a peer-reviewed publication with a defined patient cohort remains a meaningful distinction.
Peer review matters in cosmetic surgery precisely because so much of the field is shaped by testimonials and social media rather than documented outcomes. A published patient cohort allows other surgeons to examine methodology, complication rates and follow-up periods, rather than relying solely on a practice’s own marketing materials.
Patients researching any facial procedure are generally well served by asking whether a technique has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and if so, requesting details about the study’s size and follow-up duration before making a decision. Refer to this article to learn more.
Visit for more information about Dr. Andrew Jacono on https://www.youtube.com/c/drandrewjacono