ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Transconjunctival or Transcutaneous Approach for Fat-preserving Lower Lid Blepharoplasty?
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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.
- High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the Treatment of Infraorbital Fat Protrusion: A Preliminary Case Series.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lower lid blepharoplasty (LLB) has evolved significantly since its early description. The traditional subciliary incision is no longer the standard, and primary use of fat pad excision has been challenged by orbital fat preservation and repositioning. The current review aimed at determining whether effective pedicled orbital fat repositioning is better performed with a subciliary transcutaneous or a transconjunctival incision. Methods: A comprehensive population, intervention, comparison, and outcome review of cohort clinical studies published from 2000 up to May 2025 in the English-language literature, adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were retrieved for analysis. LLB with fat excision or flap transposition can be safely performed with both approaches. However, the desired outcome seems to be equally achievable with both pedicle fat flap transposition and fat grafting. Conclusions: LLB may be safely performed with both transcutaneous and transconjunctival access incisions. Orbital fat transposition is also possible with both approaches, although it is probably easier with the transcutaneous approach. However, fat transposition may not be the ideal technique for blending the lid-cheek junction or correcting tear trough deformity. Fat grafting may be more appropriate and easier to perform. Unfortunately, the LLB literature lacks rigorous reporting of outcomes and complications, greatly limiting the identification of the most appropriate approach. This deficiency needs to be seriously considered and corrected in future studies.
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.