How Thread Lifting Can Be Standardized Without Losing Precision

Dr. Adeliya Zhurayeva, the author of five registered thread-lifting methodologies outlines how standardization grounded in anatomical logic and education can preserve procedural precision while allowing thread-based techniques to be consistently applied by different practitioners

Thread-based lifting has become a routine component of minimally invasive aesthetic medicine. Large multicenter clinical reviews report its widespread use in everyday practice, as documented in a multicenter study cited by ResearchGate. At the same time, systematic reviews and clinical analyses published in professional journals consistently note significant variability in outcomes and complication profiles, including asymmetry, tissue dimpling, thread visibility, nerve irritation, and limited long-term stability.

As clinical literature increasingly frames thread lifting as a high-variance, operator-dependent procedure, Dr. Adeliya Zhurayeva argues that much of this variance is driven less by thread material than by inconsistent anatomical interpretation and planning. In response, she focused her work on developing anatomically standardized and reproducible clinical systems for thread-based interventions. A physician in aesthetic medicine and cosmetology, she leads the Scientific Research Institute of Cosmetology and Dermatology in Almaty, where her work is focused on reducing procedural variance through reproducible anatomical protocols. Her premise is that predictability can be engineered when vectors, planes, and fixation logic are defined as repeatable anatomical decisions rather than aesthetic intuition. She formalized this framework in a set of protected methods that translate the same standardization logic across facial zones, including single-point temporal lifting, one-point brow lifting, two-point correction of mid- and lower-face ptosis, and multi-point thread-based nasal correction with structural support. These methods were consolidated into a unified educational program implemented through the Dr.Sao school, the Eurasian School of Thread Technologies, Contour Plastics, and Innovation, specializing in professional education for dermatologists, cosmetologists, and surgeons. 

In this article, we examine how Dr. Adeliya Zhurayeva’s approach to thread lifting can reduce procedural variability and bring new standards to the industry..

Where thread techniques lose predictability

In everyday practice, thread lifting is often perceived as technically straightforward: short procedure time, limited rehabilitation, and an apparent clarity of result. However, in Dr. Zhurayeva’s early clinical work, this perceived simplicity masks a fundamental issue: predictability. The same technique, performed with the same thread material, can produce stable and harmonious results in one case and visible imbalance in another.

As the expert explains, “the issue is anatomical. Facial tissues are neither uniform nor static. Ligaments, fat compartments, and muscles behave differently across facial zones and change under movement. When threads are placed based mainly on surface landmarks or aesthetic intuition, without a clear understanding of load-bearing structures and tension vectors, the result depends more on the individual operator than on the technique itself,” she adds.

It was this discrepancy between expected and actual reproducibility that prompted Dr. Zhurayeva to approach thread techniques not as isolated cosmetic maneuvers, but as interventions into a complex biomechanical system that can be standardized.

From isolated procedures to anatomical systems

This approach is detailed across a series of Dr. Zhurayeva’s applied scientific materials developed at the Scientific Research Institute of Cosmetology and Dermatology. In the work “Method of Temporal Lifting Using a Single Entry Point,” she describes how reducing the number of puncture sites and working within defined anatomical layers allows for more predictable vector control and lower tissue trauma. Similar principles are explored in her methodological publication on atraumatic nasal narrowing with threads and simultaneous smoothing of the nasolabial triangle, where thread placement is planned in relation to supporting structures rather than external contours, allowing adjacent facial zones to be corrected within a single anatomical framework.

“In many early thread techniques, the face was treated as a static surface, which often led to short-lived results or tension imbalances. In our research, we focused on identifying zones where soft tissues can safely bear load and where fixation remains stable during facial movement. This made it possible to design methods where correction in one area does not create compensatory distortion in another,” she notes.

A related consideration is the overall procedural burden placed on tissue during thread interventions. Techniques that rely on multiple entry points may achieve a rapid visual effect, but they also increase cumulative micro-trauma, which can intensify postoperative discomfort, prolong recovery, and raise the likelihood of edema or movement irregularities.

By limiting the number of access points and avoiding unnecessary tissue passes, Dr. Zhurayeva’s approach reduces structural disruption at the outset. Patients typically experience less procedural discomfort, milder postoperative swelling, and a more predictable recovery trajectory. As tissues settle, the result stabilizes without prolonged inflammatory response or secondary tension.

Across these works, registered in the Republic of Kazakhstan’s state register of copyright-protected scientific methodologies and implemented in clinical practice, a consistent objective is articulated: thread lifting should not aim for maximal elevation, but for anatomically justified redistribution of tension that preserves facial dynamics and minimizes dependence on the operator’s subjective technique.

The implementation of these methodologies in clinical practice has demonstrated improved stability of results, preservation of facial dynamics, and applicability in functionally complex cases, including post-stroke facial asymmetry.

“I remember a patient who came to us after a stroke with a very pronounced facial asymmetry. In cases like that, even a small overcorrection can immediately affect comfort or make expression look unnatural,” she recalls.

In response, Dr. Zhurayeva structured the treatment strategy around restoring balance within key support areas. Diagnostic assessment included evaluation of muscle tone asymmetry, facial movement patterns, and visual vectors in both static and dynamic states. Correction was staged: initial emphasis was placed on peri-orbital support and brow positioning, followed by atraumatic stabilization of the midface to redistribute tension without excessive traction.

The outcome was not rigid symmetry, but improved visual harmony during expression, preservation of natural movement, and increased patient confidence. In cases where aesthetic correction intersects with functional recovery, anatomy-driven planning developed by Dr. Zhurayeva is a practical necessity, particularly when aesthetic intervention intersects with functional rehabilitation.

Clinical implications of atraumatic design

Once thread techniques are applied within such a framework, the role of atraumatic design becomes evident. 

As Dr. Zhurayeva explains, “In everyday practice, doctors may use multiple puncture points and stronger traction to achieve a faster visible result. Clinically, though, this tends to overload the tissues and can lead to swelling and changes in how the face moves.” 

Her response to this problem was to rethink how correction is achieved in zones most sensitive to mechanical load, such as the cheek and jawline area, as well as in nasal shaping. Instead of fixing tissues through force, her methods are structured around guiding repositioning along anatomically stable pathways. By anchoring threads in areas capable of supporting physiological movement and adaptation, correction unfolds through balance rather than traction, helping preserve natural facial behavior as tissues settle over time. In this context, “minimally invasive” is defined not by the absence of incisions, but by how carefully the intervention respects anatomical function.

At the same time, Dr. Zhurayeva emphasizes that even a well-designed technique loses clinical value if it remains dependent on individual interpretation. To address this, she consolidated her methods into a unified educational framework, allowing the underlying anatomical logic to be translated into structured protocols. Since 2021, this program has been used to train more than 450 physicians from over ten countries, serving as a practical test of whether the methodology can be applied consistently across different clinical environments.

The response from the professional community suggests that this effort toward standardization resonates beyond individual practice. In 2025, Dr. Zhurayeva was invited as an external expert to participate in the evaluation of doctoral research at the Department of Dermatovenerology and Aesthetic Medicine of Kazakh National Medical University, one of the leading Kazakh medical schools nationally, with high employability rates near 96% for graduates. Her work has also been recognized through membership in the Association of Beauty Professionals, a professional community that connects practitioners working in beauty, aesthetics, and wellness. The association focuses on professional communication and knowledge exchange within the industry. In addition, she was a recipient of the Alliance Top Award 2024 in the Beauty and Wellbeing category, an industry award that brings together specialists whose work is reviewed within defined professional categories.

In modern minimally invasive cosmetology, innovation is no longer defined by the number of new procedures or materials introduced. Instead, it is measured by the ability to deliver consistent, anatomically sound results while preserving function and natural expression. By reframing thread techniques as systems rather than isolated interventions, Dr. Adeliya Zhurayeva’s work suggests how the field can move from variability toward predictability, turning minimally invasive aesthetics into a discipline grounded in anatomical logic, clinical responsibility, and reproducible outcomes.