Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty: Does the Literature Support the Longevity of this Procedure?. (31st July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wilson, Stelios C; Daar, David A; Maliha, Samantha G; Abdou, Salma A; Levine, Steven M; Baker, Daniel C
• Is Part Of: Aesthetic surgery journal. Volume 38:Number 12(2018)
• Page Start: 1289
• Page End: 1297
• Publication Date: 2018-07-31
• Subjects: Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.95
• DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjy186
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1090-820X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Lower eyelid blepharoplasty has continued to evolve with ongoing debate regarding optimal techniques. Despite large case series publishing excellent results and minimal complications, the true longevity of these procedures remains unclear. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine how thoroughly the aesthetic surgery literature assesses the longevity of lower blepharoplasty. Methods: A 20-year comprehensive literature review from 1997 to 2017 was conducted. The titles and abstracts of 180 articles were reviewed, yielding 86 potential publications; 49 studies met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results: A total of 10, 698 patients were included for analysis. Reported follow-up ranged between 1 week and 192 months. Mean follow-up was 14.8 months for the 29 studies (59.2%) that reported these data. Pooled analysis of complication rates demonstrated 0.77% ( n = 82) reoperation, 0.37% ( n = 39) scleral show, 0.25% ( n = 27) lid malposition, and 0.24% ( n = 25) ectropion rates, among others. Forty-four studies (89.8%) published postoperative photographs with a total of 141 unique postoperative time points that were supported with photographic evidence (mean: 15.3 months; range: 1 week–192 months). In this series, for only 10 patients (0.094%) were postoperative photographs available at time points beyond 24 months. Conclusions: Lower eyelid blepharoplasty is a powerful procedure with seemingly minimal morbidity despite its technical demands. The longevity of this procedure is poorly supported with photographic evidence in the literature. Studies do not adequately report or represent their follow-up to capture long-lasting results. Standardized reporting of results is needed to ensure that anyone seeking this treatment can be adequately counseled. Level of Evidence: 4: