SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2025
Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and follow-up burden.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 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.
- Hybrid Neural Network Architecture for Automated Liver and Tumor Segmentation Using Ensemble Learning on CT Images.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper eyelid blepharoplasty is a common surgical procedure requiring meticulous wound closure. The choice between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures remains debated, with implications for clinical outcomes, patient comfort, and postoperative follow-up burden.
objectiveThis systematic review aims to compare absorbable and non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty, focusing on clinical outcomes (scar quality, complications) and postoperative burden (follow-up visits, discomfort).
methodFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Included studies were randomized controlled trials, prospective/retrospective cohort studies, or case series directly comparing suture types. Data were extracted and synthesized qualitatively due to heterogeneity.
resultsEleven studies met inclusion criteria. Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures demonstrated equivalent scar quality and complication rates. While absorbable sutures theoretically reduce follow-up burden by eliminating removal needs, no included study provided quantitative data on visit numbers or resource utilization. A potential reduction in patient discomfort is often cited, but was also not quantitatively measured. Suture technique (running vs. interrupted) influenced early edema but not long-term outcomes. Risk factors for adverse events were technique-dependent rather than suture material-dependent.
conclusionBoth suture types are clinically viable, with absorbable sutures offering logistical advantages. The choice should consider patient preferences and surgical context. Future research should quantify follow-up burden and evaluate newer suture technologies.
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.