Clinical efficacy comparison of three methods for correction of moderate and severe upper eyelid skin laxity

Objective To compare and analyze the clinical appplication and therapeutic effect of applying three methods for correction of moderate and severe upper eyelid skin laxity. Methods From January 2017 to March 2019, retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of applying three methods by Department of Plastic Surgery at Xijing Hospital of Air Force Medical University to correct moderate and severe upper eyelid skin laxity, such as subbrow blepharoplasty(SBB), double eyelid surgery(DES) and combination of subbrow blepharoplasty and double eyelid surgery(CSD). Patients were divided into the SBB group, DES group, and CSD group according to the different surgical methods, inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 6 month postoperative improvement of upper eyelid skin laxity, including marginal reflex distance 1(MRD1), medial corneal margin-fold distance (MCMFD), middle pupil margin-fold distance (MPMFD), lateral canthus margin-fold distance (LCMFD), the improvement of upper eyelid wrinkles and patient and surgeon visual analog scores (VAS) were compared. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, comparison between groups was performed by ANOVA, pairwise comparison between groups was performed by LSD-t test, P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Ninety female patients were included in this study. Thirty patients in each group, patients were between 35 and 62 years old. There was no significant difference in gender, age, and degree of upper eyelid skin laxity among the three groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up for 6 to 24 months. Upper eyelid skin laxity and upper eyelid wrinkles were obviously improved in all cases after operation. With the exception of 2 cases of vomiting and 1 case of scalp numbness of CSD group. The improvement of MRD1 in SBB group, DES group and CSD group was (0.14±0.09) mm, (0.34±0.11) mm, (0.43±0.15) mm, showing significant difference between three groups (F=34.537, P <0.001). The differences between the SBB group and the DES group, the DES group and the CSD group, and the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=6.418, 2.824, 9.236, P <0.001, 0.008, <0.001). The improvement of MCMFD in SBB group, DES group and CSD group was (0.32±0.15) mm, (0.92±0.21) mm, (0.97±0.24) mm, showing significant difference between three groups (F=94.082, P <0.001). The differences between the SBB group and the DES group, the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=11.273, 12.404, P <0.001), and there was no significant difference between the DES group and the CSD group (t=1.132, P=0.261). The improvement of MPMFD in SBB group, DES group and CSD group was (0.34±0.13) mm, (1.07±0.24) mm, (1.37±0.23) mm, showing significant difference between three groups (F=193.935, P<0.001). The differences between the SBB group and the DES group, the DES group and the CSD group, and the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=13.531, 5.628, 19.159, P <0.001). The improvement of LCMFD in SBB group, DES group and CSD group was (0.54±0.17) mm, (1.58±0.37) mm, (1.97±0.48) mm, showing significant difference between three groups (F=121.405, P <0.001). The differences between the SBB group and the DES group, the DES group and the CSD group, and the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=10.971, 4.097, 15.068, P <0.001). The improvement of upper eyelid wrinkles in SBB group, DES group and CSD group was 0.70±0.47, 0.50±0.51, 1.20±0.48, showing significant difference between three groups (F=16.471, P <0.001). There was no significant difference between the SBB group and the DES group (t=1.592, P=0.115), while the differences between the DES group and the CSD group, and the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=5.571, 3.979, P <0.001). The VAS patients score in SBB group, DES group and CSD group was 2.77±0.57, 2.17±0.38, 3.90±0.31, showing significant difference between three groups (F=124.575, P<0.001). The differences between the SBB group and the DES group, the DES group and the CSD group, and the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=5.379, 15.541, 10.161, P <0.001). The VAS surgeons score was 2.80±0.61, 2.27±0.58, 4.07±0.45, showing significant difference between three groups (F=84.085, P<0.001). The differences between the SBB group and the DES group, the DES group and the CSD group, and the SBB group and the CSD group were statistically significant (t=3.740, 12.624, 8.883, P <0.001). Conclusions Compared with subbrow blepharoplasty and double eyelid surgery, the combination of subbrow blepharoplasty and double eyelid surgery is an effective way to excise upper eyelid skin and reduce wrinkles, which has the best results in promoting upper eyelid rejuvenation. It should be considered as optimal method for correction of moderate and severe upper eyelid skin laxity. Key words: Upper eyelid skin laxity; Upper eyelid aging; Eyebrow lifting; Double eyelid plasty; Evaluation study