SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Surgical management and reconstruction techniques for divided eyelid nevus: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDivided eyelid nevus represents a congenital melanocytic lesion that carries malignant transformation potential and may compromise both aesthetic appearance and functional integrity of the eyelids. This systematic review examines surgical techniques for the complete excision and subsequent reconstruction of such lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic search was conducted across multiple databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, with the search extending until July 7, 2025. The main question of the study was: "What are the outcomes of reconstructive surgery for divided nevus?". No restrictions were applied regarding publication language, geographic location, or time period. Inclusion criteria consisted of original research studies evaluating surgical management of nevi, with particular focus on treatment efficacy and postoperative outcomes. Excluded studies comprised non-original research, qualitative studies, editorials, letters to the editor, and review articles. The methodology followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews.
resultsThe systematic review ultimately incorporated 33 studies evaluating various therapeutic modalities for nevus management, including surgical excision with primary closure, flap reconstruction techniques, skin grafting procedures, laser ablation, and cryotherapy. All surgical modalities demonstrated improvements in both aesthetic and functional outcomes; however, flap-based reconstruction yielded superior results compared to skin grafting, attributable to enhanced vascular perfusion. Common complications across techniques included madarosis, trichiasis, recurrence, and residual nevus cells.
conclusionFlap-based reconstruction consistently demonstrates superior functional and aesthetic outcomes compared to skin grafting, primarily due to enhanced vascularity and tissue compatibility. Other techniques have their own benefits and risks.
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.