Safety Data Sets Dr. Jacono’s Facelift Technique Apart

Complication rates rarely make headlines in cosmetic surgery marketing, but they matter more than almost anything else to patients weighing whether to undergo a facelift. That data is part of what has made the extended deep plane technique developed by Dr. Andrew Jacono a subject of ongoing interest among facial plastic surgeons.

Initial studies on the approach recorded a 3.9 percent revision rate, an approximately 1.9 percent hematoma rate, and a 1.3 percent chance of temporary facial nerve injury. Those figures sit below typical outcomes reported for standard facelift procedures, giving surgeons a comparative benchmark that few competing techniques can match.

WHY DEPTH MATTERS FOR NERVE PROTECTION

The explanation traces back to anatomy rather than surgical skill alone. Traditional facelifts operate closer to the skin’s surface, tightening the superficial musculoaponeurotic system from above. Dr. Jacono’s method instead works beneath that layer, releasing ligaments and repositioning tissue as a connected unit rather than pulling skin independently of what lies underneath.

Later research examining deep-plane approaches broadly confirmed that this depth carries a lower chance of facial nerve injury compared with superficial techniques, largely because the dissection preserves anatomical relationships and blood supply that shallower methods can disrupt. Preserving those structures appears to reduce complications that have historically discouraged some patients from pursuing facelift surgery at all.

A TRACK RECORD BUILT ON VOLUME

Dr. Andrew Jacono performs roughly 250 deep-plane facelifts annually, a volume that allows continuous refinement of technique and reduces the variability that can accompany less frequently performed procedures. Surgeons who perform a given operation at that scale tend to develop judgment that is difficult to replicate through occasional practice.

For patients evaluating facelift options, published complication data offers something marketing materials cannot: an honest accounting of what can go wrong and how often it actually does. That transparency, more than any single technical detail, may be the strongest argument for why this approach has drawn sustained attention within the field. Refer to this article for additional information.

Follow for more information about Dr. Andrew Jacono on https://www.instagram.com/drjacono/?hl=en