HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF MIDFACE THREAD LIFTING: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COMPLICATION RATES AND A NOVEL SAFETY GRADING SYSTEM
Author(s)
Seihee Kim, ph.D, YunJi Jeong, MPH, Yale Joo, MPH, Chaemin Shin, ph.D.
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea, Republic of.
OBJECTIVES: Aesthetic procedures are driven by patient choice rather than medical necessity, warranting a safety-centered appraisal distinct from conventional efficacy-based recommendation grading. A national HTA agency (NECA) conducted a systematic review of midface thread lifting and piloted a newly developed Safety Recommendation grading framework integrating risk level, evidence strength, and regulatory intensity.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of international and domestic databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, RISS, KISS) was conducted through October 2025. Studies reporting overall complication rates after absorbable suture-based midface thread lifting were eligible, and two independent reviewers performed screening and data extraction. Complications were classified as major (requiring active intervention: infection, hematoma, nerve injury, granuloma, tissue damage, or thread removal) or minor (self-resolving or conservatively managed: swelling, bruising, erythema, tenderness, dimpling). A four-tier grading system (S1-S4), integrating invasiveness, evidence quality, and regulatory considerations, was developed and piloted by a four-member plastic surgery advisory panel across four rounds, which assigned the final grade.
RESULTS: Eleven case series (469 patients; PDO predominant) were included. Major complications were absent in 9 of 11 studies (81.8%); where reported, rates were low (extrusion 5%, infection 6.2%, hematoma/bleeding 5%), mild, and resolved spontaneously within one month. Minor events (bruising, swelling, erythema, pain, dimpling, asymmetry) were common but transient and self-limiting. Most procedures were reported by board-certified plastic or dermatologic specialists. Applying the framework, the panel unanimously assigned grade S2 (conditional recommendation): more invasive than lasers/superficial peels (S1) but comparable in risk to fillers and botulinum toxin, permitted under specialist qualification and accredited facility/equipment conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Midface thread lifting demonstrated a favorable safety profile. This study holds significance as a pilot in which a national HTA agency, together with practicing clinicians, analyzed the safety of an aesthetic procedure and collaboratively assigned a recommendation grade, illustrating a safety-centered appraisal model for cosmetic technologies.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of international and domestic databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, RISS, KISS) was conducted through October 2025. Studies reporting overall complication rates after absorbable suture-based midface thread lifting were eligible, and two independent reviewers performed screening and data extraction. Complications were classified as major (requiring active intervention: infection, hematoma, nerve injury, granuloma, tissue damage, or thread removal) or minor (self-resolving or conservatively managed: swelling, bruising, erythema, tenderness, dimpling). A four-tier grading system (S1-S4), integrating invasiveness, evidence quality, and regulatory considerations, was developed and piloted by a four-member plastic surgery advisory panel across four rounds, which assigned the final grade.
RESULTS: Eleven case series (469 patients; PDO predominant) were included. Major complications were absent in 9 of 11 studies (81.8%); where reported, rates were low (extrusion 5%, infection 6.2%, hematoma/bleeding 5%), mild, and resolved spontaneously within one month. Minor events (bruising, swelling, erythema, pain, dimpling, asymmetry) were common but transient and self-limiting. Most procedures were reported by board-certified plastic or dermatologic specialists. Applying the framework, the panel unanimously assigned grade S2 (conditional recommendation): more invasive than lasers/superficial peels (S1) but comparable in risk to fillers and botulinum toxin, permitted under specialist qualification and accredited facility/equipment conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Midface thread lifting demonstrated a favorable safety profile. This study holds significance as a pilot in which a national HTA agency, together with practicing clinicians, analyzed the safety of an aesthetic procedure and collaboratively assigned a recommendation grade, illustrating a safety-centered appraisal model for cosmetic technologies.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
CO89
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Health Technology Assessment, Medical Technologies
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Clinician Reported Outcomes, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Surgery