Comparison of Palpebral Marginal and Traditional Incision Techniques for Double-Eyelid Surgery.

Abstract

The palpebral marginal incision technique is a novel method for double-eyelid surgery. However, studies comparing palpebral marginal and traditional incisions are scarce. We aimed to compare the two techniques with respect to post-operative patient satisfaction and complications. This retrospective analysis included 422 patients who underwent double-eyelid surgery with either the palpebral marginal incision or traditional incision at the Medical Cosmetology Department of Tianjin Eye Hospital from February 2015 to September 2018. Patients were divided into the palpebral marginal (n = 280, 66.4%) and traditional incision (n = 142, 33.6%) groups. Patient satisfaction at 3 and 6months post-operatively and incidence of complications were compared between the groups. The average post-operative follow-up duration was 6.75months. The palpebral marginal incision group was younger than the traditional incision. There were no significant differences in sexes between the groups. Compared with the traditional incision group, the palpebral marginal incision group had greater patient satisfaction at 3months post-operatively. Patient satisfaction at 6months post-operatively and total incidence of complications were similar between the groups. Incidence of hypertrophic scar formation was lower in the palpebral marginal incision group. Other complications showed no significant between-group differences. The palpebral marginal incision technique has similar surgical outcomes to the traditional incision technique. Our findings confirm that the advantages of the palpebral marginal incision technique include almost indiscernible surgical scarring and faster post-operative recovery, which may result in increasing popularity among young people. Therefore, we suggest that the palpebral marginal incision technique is reliable and worthy of recommendation. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.