ReviewJPRAS open2026
Upper eyelid retraction: meta-analysis & systematic review of surgical outcomes.
Review in JPRAS 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Upper eyelid retraction (UER) is the hallmark of thyroid eye disease and a recognized complication of aesthetic and reconstructive eyelid surgery. Multiple levator-Müller targeted procedures exist, yet technique selection remains empirical, and no prior quantitative synthesis focused on posterior-lamellar lengthening has been available. Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis was performed. Studies reporting MRD1 (Marginal Reflex Distance 1) change, anatomical success, or reoperations rates after retractor-lengthening surgery were included. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses assessed baseline severity, surgical macro-area, approach, etiology, and spacer material. Risk of bias was evaluated using ROBINS-I and RoB 2. Results: Thirty-nine studies comprising 2064 patients (3096 eyelids) were analyzed. Pooled ΔMRD1 was 2.71 mm (95% CI 2.36-3.06) and anatomical success 85% (95% CI 80.6-89.1%). Preoperative severity explained most heterogeneity (β = 0.72 mm/mm; p < 0.0001), while surgical technique had no independent effect after adjustment. Reoperation rate was 12% (95% CI 9.1-15.5%), with increased odds after levator-only procedures (OR 3.5; p = 0.014) and levator/Müller recession-resection (OR 2.5; p = 0.034). Autologous spacers provided higher success (88%) and fewer reoperations (5%) than non-autologous grafts (76%; 25%). Overcorrection was more frequent with levator-only techniques (OR 5.6; p = 0.020), whereas undercorrection correlated inversely with baseline severity (β = -0.33; p = 0.045). Conclusions: Surgical correction of UER yields reliable outcomes when matched to disease severity. Baseline retraction, rather than technique, predicts postoperative eyelid position, while reoperation risk differentiates procedures, favoring blepharotomy and autologous spacers. These findings support a severity-matched approach for surgical planning and patient counseling.
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.