4.0 Article

A Web-Based Survey of Oculoplastic Surgeons Regarding the Management of Lower Lid Retraction

Journal

SEMINARS IN OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 125-130

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08820538.2019.1596290

Keywords

Lower eyelid; retraction; scleral show; surgeries; management

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To survey the opinion of oculoplastic surgeons on the assessment and management of lower eyelid retraction (LLR). Methods: A web-based survey queried oculoplastic surgeon members of Ojoplast, Spanish and Brazilian Oculoplastic Societies on the management of LLR. The frequency and percentage proportions of the responses were analyzed. Results: One hundred ninety-six oculoplastic surgeons participated in the survey. The main cause of LLR is post-blepharoplasty (62;31.6%). The most used sign to detect LLR is scleral show. The most common approaches to managing LLR are lateral canthal surgery (164/593;27.6%), autogenous spacers (148/593;24.9%) and retractor release (131/593;22.1%). The preferred autogenous graft material includes ear cartilage (102/260;39.2%). The majority of surgeons (161/314;51.3%) recommend massage or steroids injection (80/314;25.5%) for early post-blepharoplasty LLR, while, 54.1% (106/196) of participants suggested waiting for at least six months prior to surgical intervention. Frost suture is used after most LLR surgeries (154/196;91.1%). Incomplete correction is the main complication (111/310;35.8%) of LLR surgery. For mild LLR, 48% of the responders prefer clinical treatment; conversely, severe cases routinely require combined surgical techniques. Conclusions: Oculoplastic surgeons frequently diagnose LLR based on scleral show. LLR management depends on the cause and severity of lid retraction. Mild cases, in general, receive clinical treatment and severe cases need a combination of surgical techniques and grafts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available