ReviewWorld journal of clinical cases2024
Fat or fillers: The dilemma in eyelid surgery.
Review in World journal of clinical cases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined and Layered Fat Injection for Lower Eyelid Wrinkles: Comparative Efficacy in Mild and Severe Cases.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Anatomical-based filler injection techniques for the midcheek groove and infraorbital region: Narrative review.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Hyaluronic Acid vs Poly-L-Lactic Acid for the Treatment of Upper-Eyelid Hollowing: A Prospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- A multi-model fusion approach incorporating conventional radiological and machine learning features across age spectrum for periorbital fat status prediction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Facial Rejuvenation Strategy in Asian Women with Autologous Fat Transplantation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Ophthalmic complications of injectable facial fillers.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aging of the periocular region has always aroused great interest. A fresh, young, and attractive sight determined an ever-greater attention to surgical and non-surgical techniques to obtain this result. In particular, the change in the concept of a young look, considered then "full", led to the increasing use of surgical (fat grafting) or medical (hyaluronic acid) filling techniques. Eyelid rejuvenation became increasingly popular in the field of cosmetic treatments, with a focus on achieving a youthful and refreshed appearance. Among the various techniques available, the choice between using fat grafting or fillers presented a clinical dilemma. In particular, what surgery considered of fundamental importance was a long-lasting result over time. On the other hand, aesthetic medicine considered it fundamental not to have to resort to invasive treatments. But what was the reality? Was there one path better than the other, and above all, was there a better path for patients? The minireview aims to explore the physiopathology, diagnosis, treatment options, prognosis, and future studies regarding this dilemma. We analyzed the literature produced in the last 20 years comparing the two techniques. Current literature reveals advancements in biomaterials, stem cell research and tissue engineering held promise for further enhancing the field of eyelid rejuvenation. The choice between fat grafting and fillers in eyelid cosmetic treatments presented a clinical dilemma. Understanding physiopathology, accurately diagnosing eyelid aging, exploring treatment options, assessing prognosis, and conducting future studies were essential for providing optimal care to patients seeking eyelid rejuvenation.
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.