ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Minced Orbital Fat Grafting Versus Orbital Fat Repositioning in TCLB for a Young Chinese Population with Eyelid Bags and Tear Trough Deformities.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFat prolapse and tear trough deformity, indicative of lower eyelid aging, are increasingly prevalent in younger patients. Transconjunctival lower blepharoplasty (TCLB) is a suitable treatment for this demographic. However, there is currently no consensus on whether to choose fat transposition or fat transplantation when opting for TCLB. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of orbital fat repositioning (OFR) with minced orbital fat grafting (MOFG) in TCLB.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 208 lower blepharoplasties was performed to compare minced orbital fat grafting to orbital fat repositioning during TCLB. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated by comparing baseline data, surgical duration, complications, changes in distance between pupil and lower margin of the tear trough, Barton tear trough classification, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) between the two groups.
resultsThere were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. After a mean follow-up of 11.2 and 11.6 months, the study group (MOFG) had a significant reduction in distance D compared with the control group (OFR). The Barton classification scores for the study group were significantly lower than those of the control group. For GAIS scoring, in both observer and patient assessments, the study group demonstrated significantly better scores than the control group postoperatively. Complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.
conclusionsMinced orbital fat grafting achieved more favorable treatment outcomes compared with orbital fat repositioning in TCLB for younger patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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
41168368What 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.