Today I want to talk to you about the deep lift and how it differs from my work philosophy. First of all, I want to emphasize that the deep lift is an absolutely standardized technique, performed by excellent surgeons, many of whom are also my friends, so there’s nothing to say about the technique itself. It’s not my work philosophy, and in the scientific field, there’s a rather important debate between the need for a deep lift and the possibility of performing much less invasive interventions.
Well, my philosophy is precisely to have minimal invasiveness, which is why I have standardized the endoscopic technique and also a less invasive technique for the neck. The deep lift is a procedure that involves a very deep detachment of the tissues, therefore in deep anatomical planes. This obviously means that long scars are necessary, surgical times are a bit longer, and patients, in my opinion, are exposed to greater complications.
This without being balanced by a better effect compared to a less invasive or endoscopic lift, and above all, many studies now show that there isn’t even a difference in the duration of the interventions over time. So personally, I don’t perform the deep lift; I consider it an excessively aggressive intervention without providing better and more lasting results in return.
The deep lift mainly concerns the middle and lower third of the face, so the neck and middle third, and practically has no intervention in the upper part. While instead, as we know, endoscopic surgery, the Mivel technique that I have standardized and which for me is the queen technique in facial rejuvenation, deals precisely with the upper and middle third.
So endoscopic surgery can work on this part of the face, and in this part of the face, for me, repositioning with vertical vectors is fundamental, as well as volume restoration and tissue regeneration through the Seffiller technique. As for the neck, I also don’t like to treat the patient with overly invasive treatments in this area, so no deep lift, and for this reason, I have standardized and published the NAL technique, which involves an intervention for the repositioning of the platysma muscle in a minimally invasive way using polytetrafluorene strips.
Well, so I hope I’ve made you understand what I think about the deep lift technique, which is an excellent technique, performed by excellent surgeons, but which I don’t agree with because I don’t want to expose patients to such heavy, high-risk interventions without giving them real advantages. Moreover, with the endoscopic technique, I can work on the upper third, I can use vertical vectors, not posterior vectors, vertical anti-gravitational vectors, minimal incisions because endoscopy involves small cuts, and for the lower part, therefore neck platysma, the NAL technique which also involves a superficial intervention here, so not deep, but which guarantees stability thanks to these artificial ligaments.
https://www.gennaichirurgia.it/en/endoscopic-lifting-face-mivel/