ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Achieving Natural Aesthetics in Lower-Lid Pretarsal Rolls Reconstruction: A Personalized Approach Based on Eye Shape.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite progress in eye rejuvenation research, there is limited study on the aesthetics of the lower-lid pretarsal rolls. This study aims to explore the distribution and aesthetic relationship between different lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and eye shapes, offering guidance for personalized lower-lid pretarsal rolls reconstruction in clinical practice.
methodsA total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.
resultsThe distribution of lower-lid pretarsal rolls types was as follows: parallel (28.99%), linear (9.56%), crescent (18.55%), and fishtail (42.91%). For eye types, Phoenix eyes accounted for 31.90%, Almond eyes 31.95%, Elongated eyes 16.57%, Sagging eyes 14.44%, and Hanging eyes 5.14%. Among eye types, Phoenix eyes preferred the parallel type (3.60 ± 0.98), while fishtail scored lowest (3.23 ± 1.13). Hanging eyes favored the linear type (3.53 ± 1.20), while fishtail had the lowest score (2.93 ± 0.99). Crescent types were preferred for Elongated eyes (3.46 ± 1.10), while linear types scored the lowest (2.60 ± 1.26). Parallel types were preferred for Sagging eyes (3.58 ± 1.08), and fishtail types scored the lowest (2.53 ± 1.03). Almond eyes had relatively high scores for all lower-lid pretarsal rolls types.
conclusionA total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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
41366106What 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.