CONTINUOUS RUNNING SUTURING VERSUS SUBCUTICULAR SUTURING TECHNIQUES IN UPPER BLEPHAROPLASTY

Authors

  • Ari Hasan Rashid Board Candidate at Kurdistan Board of Medical Specialties, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
  • Ari Raheem Qader Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
  • Hawree Abdulsattar Hasan DOH, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
  • Faraydoon Karim Rasul DOH, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17656/jsmc.10267

Keywords:

Upper Blepharoplasty, Complications, Suture Material

Abstract

Background 

Upper blepharoplasty is among the most common procedures performed by plastic surgeons. In this procedure upper eyelid excess skin, muscle, and fat are removed and the wound is closed by a variety of methods. 

Objectives 

To evaluate the differences in the complications and the outcomes of the different methods of skin closure following upper eyelid blepharoplasty.

Patients and Methods

Standard upper blepharoplasty has been done for 38 patients which randomly selected into two groups, 20 patients to group A (continuous suturing technique) and 18 patients into group B (subcuticular technique). 

Results

Assessment of the patients done after 5 days, 1 month, and 6 months post-operatively. Besides some minor complications of erythema and edema, there were only two patients, one in each group with moderate edema and ecchymosis. No other significant differences were found in terms of the complications between the two groups. Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale used at 6 months post-operative. There was also no significant difference, the P-value of the patient scale was 0.23 and of the observer, the scale was 0.64.

Conclusion

In this study, we did not find a significant difference in the complications and the outcome between the aforementioned methods of eyelid wound closur. The selection of the procedure is up to the surgeon to select. We do not recommend the surgeons to change their method of closure. We provide our findings for consideration and further study.

References

-Tekoaking CNM MPH clinical management of premature rupture of membranes. JNM.1994.39.2. 1. Ilankovan V. Aesthetic blepharoplasty. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;48(7):493–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.09.006

Hoorntje LE, Lei B van der, Stollenwerck GA, Kon M. Resecting orbicularis oculi muscle in upper eyelid blepharoplasty - A review of the literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2010;63(5):787–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2009.02.069

Bassichis BA. Cosmetic upper-lid blepharoplasty. Oper Tech Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2007;18(3):203–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otot.2007.08.005

Rohrich RJ, Coberly DM, Fagien S, Stuzin JM. Current concepts in aesthetic upper blepharoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(3):32e-42e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000105684.06281.32

Lam SM, Asian blepharoplasty. Pearls Pitfalls Cosmet Oculoplastic Surgery, 2nd edition. New York: Springer New York; 2015. P. 127–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1544-6_38

Joshi AS, Janjanin S, Tanna N, Geist C, Lindsey C. Does suture material and technique matter? Lessons learned from 800 consecutive blepharoplasties. Laryngoscope. 2007;117(6):981–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0b013e31804f54bd

Guyuron B, Vaughan C. A Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Suture Materials for Skin Repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;89(2) 234–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199202000-00005

Patrocinio TG, Loredo BAS, Arevalo CEA, Gomespatrocinio L, Patrocinio JA. Complications in blepharoplasty: How to avoid and manage them. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011;77(3):322–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942011000300009

Lew H, Goldberg RA. Maximizing Symmetry in Upper Blepharoplasty: The Role of Microptosis Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137(2):296e-304e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000475751.48462.b7

Codner MA, Burke RM. Blepharoplasty. Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery. 7th edition. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2014. P. 487–500.

Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FRH, Botman YAM, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(7):1960–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000122207.28773.56

Suriano MM, Stirbu O, Pérez M D, Serra Segarra M. Blepharoplasty: to suture or to use cyanoacrylate? Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2011;86(3):81–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2173-5794(11)70015-9

Wu LW, Ye Z, Xu Y, Yu J, Wu Y. Orbicularis-levator-tarsus composite suture technique in double-eyelid operation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2015;68(8):1079–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.04.009

Fagien S. The role of the orbicularis oculi muscle and the eyelid crease in optimizing results in aesthetic upper blepharoplasty: A new look at the surgical treatment of mild upper eyelid fissure and fold asymmetries. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(2):653–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181c87cc6

Scaccia FJ, Hoffman JA, Stepnick DW. Upper Eyelid Blepharoplasty: A Technical Comparative Analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 1994 Aug 1;120(8):827–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1994.01880320029007

Published

2020-12-21

How to Cite

1.
Rashid A, Qader A, Hasan H, Rasul F. CONTINUOUS RUNNING SUTURING VERSUS SUBCUTICULAR SUTURING TECHNIQUES IN UPPER BLEPHAROPLASTY. JSMC [Internet]. 2020 Dec. 21 [cited 2024 Apr. 23];10(3):277-82. Available from: https://jsmc.univsul.edu.iq/index.php/jsmc/article/view/jsmc-10267

Similar Articles

1-10 of 100

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)