ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Maximal levator resection as a revision strategy following failed silicone frontalis sling: outcomes on eyelid position, ocular surface and patient satisfaction.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrontalis sling surgery (FSS) is the standard treatment for congenital blepharoptosis with poor levator function; however, long-term failure and material-related complications are common, particularly with silicone slings. Evidence regarding optimal revision strategies after failed silicone FSS remains limited. This study evaluated the anatomical outcomes, ocular surface safety, and patient satisfaction following maximal levator resection surgery (MLRS) performed after silicone frontalis sling removal.
methodsThis retrospective study included 20 eyes of 17 patients who underwent MLRS following silicone frontalis sling removal between 2019 and 2023. Preoperative and postoperative assessments included best-corrected visual acuity, margin reflex distance-1 (MRD-1), levator function, lagophthalmos, corneal fluorescein staining, punctate epithelial keratopathy, and patient satisfaction. Postoperative evaluations were performed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Statistical analyses were conducted using paired and repeated-measures tests, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe mean age at the time of MLRS was 11.05 ± 5.94 years, and the mean preoperative levator function was 4.85 ± 2.49 mm. Revision surgery was indicated for undercorrection in 18 eyes (90%) and conjunctival complications in 2 eyes (10%). Mean MRD-1 increased significantly from 0.25 ± 0.85 mm preoperatively to 2.55 ± 0.60 mm at 6 months postoperatively (p < 0.001), with stable values across follow-up visits. Lagophthalmos increased slightly postoperatively but did not differ significantly from preoperative measurements (p > 0.05). Mild corneal surface changes were observed in the early postoperative period and were successfully managed with medical treatment. Additional revision surgery was required in 2 eyes (10%). Most patients and their parents reported high satisfaction, with dissatisfaction primarily related to insufficient postoperative eyelid elevation.
conclusionsMLRS following silicone frontalis sling removal is associated with significant and stable improvement in eyelid position, with acceptable ocular surface safety and high patient satisfaction in selected patients across a range of levator function values. However, given the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of a comparative control group, these findings should be interpreted with caution. MLRS may be considered as a potential revision option rather than a definitive or superior approach.
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.