"You'll look 10 years younger"—this phrase, repeated for years at conferences and in ads,had no objective backing[2]. It was only with third-party evaluation in 2011 and AI image analysis in 2021 that the "real numbers" finally came into view[2,3]。
The most common question during consultations is this.
"Doctor,faceliftabout how many years younger will it make me?"
To put the answer in one sentence,facelift4.6 years on its own, and an average of 6.0 years when combined with blepharoplasty or lasers, the data show[2]. Let's look at what's behind that number.
Is "10 Years Younger" True? An Industry Truism Long Unverified
Dr. Swanson writes the following at the start of his paper.
"Surgeons have often stated that a facelift makes one look 10, sometimes 15 or more, years younger."[2]。
And he continues: "Such claims flood the market, yet have never been demonstrated"[2]。
. This was because the conventional view held that apparent age (the age a third party estimates from a photo) was subjective and unmeasurable[2]. So even when asked "how many years younger" during a consultation, doctors could not give a clear answer.
What became the turning point was the emergence of two objective methods:age-guessing of photos by laypeopleandage estimation by AI neural networks—these two[2,3]. These two would overwrite the conventional "10 years."
In short: The doctrine of "10 years younger" had no backing. Next is the "real number" produced by third-party evaluation.
The Answer From Third-Party Evaluation: 6.0 Years on Average Overall, 4.6 Years for Facelift Alone
Conclusion: The apparent age of all surgical patients decreased by an average of 6.0 years, and for facelift alone it was an average of 4.6 years[2,11]。
Swanson et al. investigated71 surgical patients and 4 controls.[11]They showed pre- and post-op photos to198 evaluatorsrecruited from the public, asking them to guess the ages—such was the design[11]。
. To avoid being recognized as the same person, pre-op photos were placed in Book A and post-op in Book B separately[12]. The interrater reliability (a measure of how much the evaluators agreed) was 0.995 for both Book A and B.[12]。
It may seem more modest than "10 years." However, numbers that change your view follow.
Of the 71 people,not a single one was seen as older than their actual age after surgery[15]. In other words, everyone was rated as younger than their actual age.[15]And it is reported that the post-op photos were seen, on average, as 10.6 years younger than actual age.[13]。
The control group (those who did not undergo surgery) showed no change in apparent age over the same period, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.01).[2]。
In short: The average is 4.6–6.0 years, and most people reached a level of looking 10.6 years younger than their actual age post-op. Next: "Do gender or age make a difference?"
Do Gender, Age, or Body Type Make a Difference? Surprisingly, "Almost None"
"Wouldn't the rejuvenation range differ between the 40s and 60s?"
"What about men versus women?"
It's natural to think so.
In Swanson et al.'s analysis,there was no statistically significant difference in the reduction range across gender, age, BMI, or facial shape[2]. In other words, whatever the patient, the rejuvenation range itself falls within roughly the same band.
To add, in patients over 60, the gap between the post-op photo and actual age appears large[13]However, this is a"carryover" of looking younger than actual age even before surgery, and the paper interprets that the reduction range itself has no age difference.[13]。
To those hesitating with "maybe I'm not suited for it" because of body type or features—at least within the scope of this study, that worry does not apply.[2]。
In short: Age, gender, and body type hardly change the rejuvenation range. Next: "Which technique produces how much of a difference."
Rejuvenation Range by Technique: The SMAS Method Exceeds the Skin-Only Method by About 2.4–2.9 Years
From here we look at Gibstein et al.'s 2021 study.[3]。AI neural networksA study that estimated age from pre- and post-op photos using and compared the apparent-age reduction range by technique[3]。
. Subjects were women only, aged 46–75 (average 58.7±6.0), with a follow-up period averaging 39.2 months (up to 81 months).[5]. It is reported that the AI's pre-op age estimation accuracy averaged a score of 100.8—high—and could read actual age almost accurately.[8]。
Gibstein et al. summarize thatSMAS-ectomy rejuvenated 2.9 years more than the skin-only method, and SMAS-plication 2.4 years more.[8]. Handling down to the SMAS (the superficial fascia: the thin fascial layer beneath the skin),lifts from the "foundation" of sagging so it is less prone to relapse, and the apparent-age reduction range is also larger, this tendency was demonstrated in the form of numbers.[3,8]。
Swanson's paper also introduces, as a finding from prior research, the view that "a properly performed SMAS-type facelift lasts 12 years."[4]。
In short: The SMAS family exceeds skin-only by 2–3 years. Next: "How does adding fat grafting change things."
What Happens When You Combine Fat Grafting? +2.1 Years of Rejuvenation, and Satisfaction Rises Significantly Too
Gibstein et al. compared a group that combined fat grafting with a group that did not.[6]。
Note two points.
Combining fat grafting increases the apparent-age reduction range by 2.1 years[6]. And, while the technique itself (SMAS-ectomy, plication, skin-only) showed no difference in satisfaction scores,the group that added fat grafting had clearly higher satisfaction[6]。
. Why? Gibstein et al. point out that age-related volume loss (the decrease in the cheeks, temples, and under-eye fullness) is one of the main causes of a three-dimensionally aged appearance, and that replenishing the volume decline with fat grafting is becoming common in recent facelifts.[3]。
As an actual case, in one in which a 57-year-old woman underwent a facelift combined with fat grafting,the AI-estimated age decreased by 4.5 years.[3]. On the other hand, a case of a 63-year-old woman without fat grafting decreased only 3 years,[9], and a 78-year-old woman's skin-only method was a 3.5-year decrease.[10]。
In short: Adding fat grafting yields +2.1 years of rejuvenation and higher satisfaction. Next: the effect of "procedures combined beyond the facelift."
Blepharoplasty, Lasers, Brow Lift: +2–2.5 Years per Added Procedure
"Is a facelift alone enough? Or should I also do the eyes and forehead?"
Swanson et al. also give in numbers the contribution when other techniques are combined.[15,17]。
On top of the 4.6 years for facelift alone, stacking blepharoplasty or a brow lift approaches the study average of around 6.0 years—such is the structure[2]. Swanson et al. summarize this result as "facial rejuvenationis not just a facelift, but a comprehensive design combining the necessary areas, which maximizes the effect."[13]。
Regarding fat grafting and chin augmentation, the interpretation is not that they are "ineffective" but that they were "not detected as a statistically significant difference"[15]. The paper notes that chin augmentation in particular had only 15 cases—few—making determination difficult[15]. Reading it as "chin augmentation is meaningless" is incorrect.
In short: 4.6 years alone, plus 2–2.5 years each for eyes, forehead, and lasers. Next is the often-overlooked topic of "bone aging."
Why Is "Soft Tissue Only" Limited? The Fact That Facial Bones Also Age
A facelift is a surgery that lifts soft tissue such as skin and SMAS. However, the causes of the face aging are not only these.
Shaw et al. demonstrated, by comparing three groups—young, middle-aged, and elderly—that the facial skeleton changes structurally with age.[20]. It is reported that from the young group to the middle-aged group, some bone metrics showed a statistically significant increase (t=6.404, p<0.001), and in women, significant changes continued from young→middle-aged (t=3.38, p<0.01) and middle-aged→elderly (t=3.87, p<0.001).[20]。
In plain terms, it's like this.With age, the shape of the facial bones themselves changes, and the "foundation" supporting the soft tissue gradually wastes awayApproaches centered on soft-tissue lifting were the mainstream for years, butwithout adding measures to replenish volume loss, it's hard to reach "natural rejuvenation", and this is the recent trend.[20]。
Gibstein et al.'s figure of "+2.1 years with combined fat grafting" makes sense when overlaid with Shaw et al.'s perspective of skeletal aging.[3,20]。
In short: Because even the bone is wasting away, you need the mindset of not only "lifting" but also "replenishing." Next, we answer common questions together.
FAQ: 4.6 Years? 6.0 Years? How Should I Actually Read This?
Q1. As for the answer to "how many years younger on average," which is correct after all?
Organizing by Swanson et al.'s numbers,facelift "alone" is 4.6 years, and surgery overall including combinations such as blepharoplasty or brow lift is 6.0 years, as a rough benchmark[2,11]. Individual variation spans a wide range of 0.8–14.2 years.[17]。
Q2. The SMAS method or the skin-only method—which should I choose?
In Gibstein et al.'s comparison, the SMAS familyrejuvenated 2.4–2.9 years more than the skin-only method, was the result[8]. Which technique suits you depends on the location and depth of sagging, skin thickness, and medical history. The premise is to decide after consulting your physician.
Q3. Is fat grafting necessary?
In Gibstein et al.'s data, the group that combined fat graftinghad an apparent-age reduction greater by +2.1 years, and satisfaction with the result (78.1 vs. 69) and with the choice to have surgery itself (83.0 vs. 72) was also significantly higher[6]. For those who feel their volume is decreasing, it's worth considering as an option.
Q4. Are the effects smaller for men or the elderly?
In Swanson et al.'s analysis,There is no significant difference in the reduction range across gender, age, BMI, or face shape.[2]. The anxiety of "I probably won't get much younger" does not apply, at least within the scope of this study.
Q5. How long does the effect last?
In Swanson's paper, there is a mention, as a finding from prior research, that "a properly performed SMAS-type facelift lasts 12 years"[4]. Gibstein et al.'s follow-up period averaged 39.2 months (up to 81 months), andeven beyond one year post-op, the effect is maintained on the scale of several years, which has been confirmed[5]。
In short: 4.6 years alone, 6.0 years combined, +2.4–2.9 years for the SMAS family, +2.1 years for fat grafting. That covers the key points of the three papers.
If You're Wondering "What About My Case?"
Book a Free Consultation
No pushy sales. Please feel free to reach out.
Summary: The Numbers Are Averages After All; Whether They Suit Your Face Is Another Matter
Let's organize the numbers from the three papers.
- The apparent-age reduction for facelift alone isan average of 4.6 years[2]
- the overall average for surgery including combinations is6.0 years, with individual variation of 0.8–14.2 years[2,17]
- The SMAS family, compared with the skin-only method,rejuvenates 2.4–2.9 years more[8]
- Combining fat grafting yields+2.1 years& satisfaction also significantly improves[6]
- Across gender, age, BMI, and face shape,there is no significant difference in the reduction range[2]
However, these areaverages. Your facial skin thickness, the location of sagging, bone structure, and how volume loss progresses will change both the optimal technique and the reduction range you can expect.
"I've got a rough idea from the numbers, but what about my case"—you won't find that answer just by looking in the mirror.
At Zetith Beauty Clinic, we propose the necessary combination of techniques while observing the state of the facial bones, skin, and volume. In the free consultation, weassess the current state based on photos and discuss the range realistically expectable. We won't rush you into a contract. You're welcome to leave after just hearing the explanation.
If anything concerns you, please come for a consultation first.
References
- Shaw R, Katzel E, Koltz P, et al. Aging of the Facial Skeleton: Aesthetic Implications and Rejuvenation Strategies. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2011 https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f95b2d
- Swanson Eric. Objective assessment of change in apparent age after facial rejuvenation surgery. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.04.004
- Gibstein A, Chen K, Nakfoor B, et al. Facelift Surgery Turns Back the Clock: Artificial Intelligence and Patient Satisfaction Quantitate Value of Procedure Type and Specific Techniques. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa238