Selection of Site for Harvesting Dermal Grafts as a Spacer in the Correction of Eyelid Retraction.

Abstract

Several materials can serve as spacer grafts in the repair of retracted lower eyelids. However, previous studies did not reveal any of these to be superior to the others. From our perspective, autologous dermal grafts are ideal because they are biologically compatible and abundantly available. However, the absorption of these grafts is an issue, and the thickness of the dermal grafts is crucial. We evaluated the dermal thickness at five potential donor sites using ultrasonography and the efficacy and safety of the posterior neck dermis as a spacer graft in the correction of retracted lower eyelids. In 20 healthy volunteers, the dermal thickness was assessed using ultrasonography and compared between the posterior neck, upper arm, inguinal area, intergluteal cleft, and gluteal sulcus. Between January 2018 and June 2021, eight retracted lower eyelids in eight patients were repaired using a posterior neck dermal graft. The surgical results of these grafts were also evaluated. The mean age of the volunteers was 37.8 years, and the mean body mass index was 24.45kg/m2. The intergluteal cleft provided the thickest dermis followed by the posterior neck and gluteal sulcus, which were not significantly different. The upper arm and inguinal area had the thinnest dermis without significant differences between them. The mean marginal reflex distance 2/iris ratio decreased by 0.15 (p=0.008). The mean cosmetic score (0-10) for evaluation of lower eyelid reconstruction increased by 3.38 (p=0.011). The mean Vancouver Scar Scale score for evaluation of donor site scarring was 3.21. Although the posterior neck dermis is the second thickest, it is an ideal spacer graft in the reconstruction of retracted lower eyelids. Adequate thickness, uncomplicated methods, and a closer surgical field are its advantages. Additionally, donor site morbidity is minimal, with acceptable scarring. 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 .