A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Quantitative Analysis of Paralyzed Lower Eyelid Elevation Technique: Suspension Sling versus Supporting Midcheek Lift. | LitMetric

Background: Restoration of paralytic lower eyelid retraction is challenging in the surgical management of facial paralysis. In this study, quantitative measurements were compared between the suspension sling and lower eyelid-supporting midcheek lift techniques.

Methods: From 2014 to 2016, 36 operations were performed on 28 patients with a mean age of 45.6 years (range, 7 to 80 years), a mean denervation time of 13.5 years (range, 0.2 to 44 years), and a mean follow-up period of 636 days (range, 261 to 1143 days). The surgical techniques included autologous tendon sling (n = 9), Mitek suspension (n = 12), and midcheek lift (n = 15). The distance from the pupil center to the lower eyelid margin was measured, and the ratio of the distance on the paralyzed side to that on the normal side was analyzed.

Results: The change in the ratio between the paralyzed side and the normal side was 0.098 (from 1.264 to 1.166; p = 0.353) in the autologous tendon sling group, 0.104 (from 1.231 to 1.127; p = 0.243) in the Mitek suspension group (p = 0.05), and 0.179 (from 1.234 to 1.055; p = 0.038) in the midcheek lift group. Two patients in the Mitek suspension group developed foreign body infection.

Conclusions: The midcheek lift group showed the greatest change in the ratio between the distance from the pupil center to the eyelid margin on the paralyzed side and that on the normal side. Eyelid-supporting midcheek lift is superior to suspension sling for restoration of paralytic eyelid retraction.

Clinical Question/level Of Evidence: Therapeutic, III.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005477DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

midcheek lift
24
lower eyelid
12
suspension sling
12
mitek suspension
12
paralyzed side
12
side normal
12
normal side
12
restoration paralytic
8
eyelid-supporting midcheek
8
years range
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!