ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Revision plan and results of anterior and posterior ptosis surgery.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the outcomes of revision ptosis surgeries performed using a surgical technique different from the initial procedure-either Müller muscle conjunctival resection (MMCR) or external levator surgery (ELS) based on the phenylephrine-induced change in margin reflex distance-1 (MRD-1).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study reviewed medical records of 780 patients who underwent MMCR or ELS for ptosis between January 2019 and December 2023. Revision surgery was required in 108 patients (15%). Among these, 32 eyes of 28 patients underwent a revision surgery using a technique different from the initial approach. Patient demographics, surgical details, and MRD-1 values at key clinical stages (pre-primary surgery, post-primary surgery, pre-revision surgery, and post-revision surgery) were recorded, along with levator function and postoperative complications.
resultsTwenty-eight patients (11 female, 17 male) were included. ELS was performed as the initial procedure in 13 eyes, and MMCR in 19 eyes. Surgical method for revision was determined based on the pre-revision phenylephrine response. Patients who initially underwent MMCR were classified as Group 1; those with initial ELS as Group 2. The mean interval between surgeries was 33.3 ± 38.2 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 42.5 ± 22.9 months. No significant difference in levator function or baseline MRD-1 values was observed between groups. A significant improvement in MRD-1 was noted after both primary and revision surgeries in each group. Eyelid symmetry was achieved in all patients.
conclusionSatisfactory functional and cosmetic outcomes can be obtained in revision ptosis surgery using an alternative technique to the primary approach. Preoperative phenylephrine testing and comprehensive patient evaluation are critical for surgical planning.
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.