ArticleBeyoglu eye journal2022
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty Using Two Different Suture Techniques.
Article in Beyoglu eye journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and follow-up burden.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Quality of Life following Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty: A Prospective Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- From Incision to Healing: An Evidence-Based Review of Scar Optimization in Upper Blepharoplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Evaluation of periocular scars after blepharoplasty and external dacryocystorhinostomy according to Manchester and modified Vancouver scar score.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare upper eyelid blepharoplasty patients' suture techniques with interrupted cutaneous in one eye and running cutaneous in the other in terms of edema, ecchymosis, and scar index. Methods: Among patients whose suture techniques with interrupted cutaneous in one eye and running cutaneous in the other, 34 patients in the vicryl group and 46 patients in the polypropylene group were included in the study. The patients' edema and ecchymosis levels on postoperative days 1, 7, and 30 days and 3 months were selected. The Manchester Scar Scale was used to evaluate the scar index at 30 days and 3 months after surgery. Suture material (either 6-0 polypropylene sutures or 6-0 vicryl sutures) were evaluated independently. Results: In vicryl group, there was significantly less ecchymosis and edema first week postoperatively in interrupted sutured eyelid than running sutured eyelid (p=0.001, p=0.011, respectively). In polypropylene group, there was significantly less ecchymosis at the first day and first week postoperatively in interrupted sutured eyelid than running sutured eyelid (p=0.025, p=0.001, respectively). The total scar index scores in both groups at first month and third month were significantly better at the interrupted sutured eyelid than running sutured eyelid (p<0.05, for all). Conclusion: In upper eyelid blepharoplasty, an interrupted suture technique yielded the lowest rates of edema, ecchymosis, and scar formation compared with a running suture technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.