ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
A comparison of two surgical techniques for basal cell carcinoma of the eyelid: two-step surgery and one-step surgery.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study Design, Reconstructive Modalities, and Patient-Reported Outcome Documentation in a Curated Corpus of Facial Basal Cell Carcinoma Reconstruction Studies: An Exploratory Meta-Research Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microscopically controlled two-step surgery for head and neck non-melanoma skin cancer: the role of primary resection and planned secondary wound closure.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the results of one-step surgery (OSS) and two-step surgery (TSS) in the surgical management of eyelid basal cell carcinomas (BCC).
methodA total of 43 eyes of 43 patients were included. OSS was applied to 22 of these patients, while TSS was applied to 21 patients. The safety margin width (SMW), the size and location of the tumor, the histopathology results, and the reconstructive procedures were compared.
resultsResected tumor sizes were significantly larger in the TSS group than in the OSS group (largest tumor diameter: p = 0.005 and perpendicular diameter to largest diameter: p = 0.01). Excised SMW was higher in the OSS group compared to the TSS group (p = 0.008). A positive histopathological margin was observed in 2 patients (9%) in the TSS group and in 5 patients (22%) in the OSS group (p = 0.241). In addition, excision status including the nasolacrimal drainage system (NLDS) components was present in 4 patients (18%) in OSS group and 6 patients (28%) in TSS group (p = 0.42). While monocanalicular tube intubation could be performed in all TSS patients, it could only be performed in 1 patient in the OSS group (p = 0.03). The total number of reconstructive procedures performed was similar between groups (p = 0.058).
conclusionWith regard to recurrence and metastasis, both OSS and TSS demonstrated success in the present study. This success was achieved in larger eyelid BCC tumors using the TSS technique with smaller amounts of SMW and in smaller eyelid BCC tumors using the OSS technique with larger amounts of SMW.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39658691What 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.