ArticleCureus2026
Outcomes of Traumatic Eyelid Laceration Repairs by Ophthalmology Residents Performed in the Emergency Department.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introductory statement Eyelid lacerations are a common problem in the emergency department (ED) that ophthalmology residents manage. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of eyelid lacerations repaired by ophthalmology residents. Methods A multicenter retrospective study was performed on 287 patients who presented to the ED with eyelid lacerations that were repaired by an ophthalmology resident at one of the four Southern California institutions (Loma Linda University (LLU), Riverside University Health System (RUHS), University of California Irvine (UCI), and Los Angeles General Medical Center (LAGMC)). Results Approximately half of the patients (134; 47%) were lost to follow-up. Of the patients with follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in re-operation rate for lacerations repaired by PGY-2 residents with supervision (7/21; 35%) and without supervision (6/32; 19%). When a PGY-2 performed the procedure as the primary surgeon solo in the emergency room, the complication rate was 41% (13/32). When the PGY-2 had the assistance of a senior resident, fellow, or attending, the complication rate dropped to 29% (6/21). The complication rate for an upper-level resident (PGY-3 or PGY-4) performing the repair in the ED was 23% (5/22) and 17% (1/6) if supervised by a fellow or attending (p=1.00). The most common complication was eyelid notching (10/153; 6.5%), followed by epiphora (9/153; 5.9%) and blepharoptosis (7/153; 4.6%). Conclusions Approximately half of the patients who underwent eyelid laceration repair in the ED were lost to follow-up. Of the patients who followed up and are included in this data set, the overall complication rate was similar to previously recorded complication rates recorded in the literature. Re-operation rates were not significantly different when the PGY-2 resident operated alone compared to repair with supervision. Residents were appropriately calling for supervision when dealing with a complicated laceration.
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.