ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Upper Eyelid Blepharoptosis Correction Performed Under the Operating Microscope.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reply: Letter to Editor Regarding 'Upper Eyelid Blepharoptosis Correction Performed Under the Operating Microscope'.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEyelid blepharoptosis correction is commonly performed with loupe magnification. The posture in which this operation is performed, with cervical spine flexion and forward lean, places significant stress on the cervical spine.
objectivesPerforming upper eyelid surgery under the operating microscope is not commonly practiced. The benefits are significantly better surgeon's posture while operating and potential improved surgical outcomes. These ergonomic and outcome measures were examined in this prospective study.
methodsFrom the June 2023 to June 2024, 86 cases of bilateral ptosis correction were performed (172 eyelids) with the microscope.
resultsThe mean duration of surgery was 115 minutes for bilateral ptosis correction. Our revision rate was 3%. We found the following surgical advantages with this approach: (1) Superior visual clarity with a higher and adjustable magnification and (2) consistent confocal illumination of the operative field, (3) improved precision of dissection, (4) hemostasis and (5) clear distinction of fine anatomical structures crucial to reconstructive success. The postoperative recovery was faster with better functional and cosmetic outcomes as bruising and edema was minimized from less induction of surgical trauma. Importantly as well, for the surgeon, the operating microscope may extend the longevity of one's surgical career. The postural ergonomics and cervical unloading afforded by the operating microscope can mitigate cervical spine stress and injury
conclusionsWe found 2 compelling benefits with this approach. Firstly, the surgical outcomes were superior. Secondly, the surgeon's posture is upright while operating. This long-term benefits of this could not be overstated in preventing cervical spine injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40044978What 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.