IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0160827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Suspensory Materials for Surgery of Blepharoptosis: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Elena Pacella
  • Daniele Mipatrini
  • Fernanda Pacella
  • Giulia Amorelli
  • Andrea Bottone
  • Gianpaolo Smaldone
  • Paolo Turchetti
  • Giuseppe La Torre

Abstract

Background: Frontalis suspension surgery is considered the procedure of choice in cases of blepharoptosis. Among all the materials used in this type of surgery, ophthalmic and plastic surgeons prefer to use autologous Fascia Lata. However, during years, other autogenous and exogenous materials have been introduced. Objectives: The aim of this study was therefore that of systematically reviewing the functional results and the rate of complications of different synthetic materials, as compared to autogenous Fascia Lata. The primary objective was to determine the rates of Successful Surgeries (SSs) of these materials. The secondary objective was to assess the onset of complications. The following materials were investigated: Fascia Lata, Mersilene, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and Silicon. Data Source and Methods: Following the Prisma procedure, on January 30th, 2016 we used the following electronic databases to select the studies: MEDLINE and Scopus. Results: The search strategy retrieved 48 publications that met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review. All studies were non-comparative. PTFE (n = 5) showed the best rate of SSs among the materials compared (statistically significant). Surgeries performed with autogenous Fascia Lata (n = 19) had a 87% rate of success those performed with Mersilene (n = 12)had 92% and those performed with Silicon (n = 17)88%. PTFE had the best outcome, with 99% success rate. As for complications, surgeries performed with PTFE had a higher rate of suture infections (1.9%) as compared to Fascia Lata, but lower incidence for all other complications. Conclusions: Although most studies were good quality cohort studies, the overall quality of this evidence should be regarded as low due to their non-comparative design. Our data suggest that PTFE seems to be the most valid alternative material for frontalis suspension surgery, with low recurrence rates and good cosmetic and functional results.

Suggested Citation

  • Elena Pacella & Daniele Mipatrini & Fernanda Pacella & Giulia Amorelli & Andrea Bottone & Gianpaolo Smaldone & Paolo Turchetti & Giuseppe La Torre, 2016. "Suspensory Materials for Surgery of Blepharoptosis: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160827
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160827
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160827&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0160827?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.