ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Comparative Outcomes of Traditional Versus Endoscopic Brow Lift Techniques: A Systematic Review.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Age-related changes in the brow region, such as sagging, asymmetry, and deepening of forehead lines, pose significant cosmetic and functional challenges. Various surgical approaches have been developed over the decades to address these issues. This systematic review compared traditional open techniques versus endoscopic and minimally invasive brow lift techniques in terms of aesthetic outcomes and complication rates. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies published during the past 20 years that met our predefined eligibility criteria were included. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and nonrandomized studies were evaluated with risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). Data on aesthetic outcomes and complications were extracted and compared across studies. Results: Fifteen studies were included in this review. The evidence suggests that although various open brow lift techniques provide satisfactory elevation, they are generally associated with higher complication rates and less favorable cosmetic results. In contrast, endoscopic and minimally invasive techniques, including the use of Endotine devices and gliding brow lifts, demonstrate comparable or superior aesthetic outcomes with lower complication rates and reduced recovery times. However, heterogeneity in outcome measures and study designs limits the strength of these conclusions. Conclusions: Endoscopic and minimally invasive brow lift procedures seem to offer cosmetically favorable results with lower complication rates compared with traditional open techniques. Nevertheless, further high-quality, prospective studies are needed to definitively establish the long-term efficacy and safety of these approaches.
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.