BMC ophthalmology · 2025
Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and follow-up burden.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Safaripour Amirabbas, Keshtan Sina Baghi, Boumeri Elahe, Alisofi Motahare, Rabiei Ali, Dehvari Shahin, Rahimi Barghani Mahmoud Reza, Soltanzadeh Akram
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Upper eyelid blepharoplasty is a common surgical procedure requiring meticulous wound closure. The choice between absorbable and non-absorbable sutures remains debated, with implications for clinical outcomes, patient comfort, and postoperative follow-up burden.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to compare absorbable and non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty, focusing on clinical outcomes (scar quality, complications) and postoperative burden (follow-up visits, discomfort).
METHOD: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Included studies were randomized controlled trials, prospective/retrospective cohort studies, or case series directly comparing suture types. Data were extracted and synthesized qualitatively due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures demonstrated equivalent scar quality and complication rates. While absorbable sutures theoretically reduce follow-up burden by eliminating removal needs, no included study provided quantitative data on visit numbers or resource utilization. A potential reduction in patient discomfort is often cited, but was also not quantitatively measured. Suture technique (running vs. interrupted) influenced early edema but not long-term outcomes. Risk factors for adverse events were technique-dependent rather than suture material-dependent.
CONCLUSION: Both suture types are clinically viable, with absorbable sutures offering logistical advantages. The choice should consider patient preferences and surgical context. Future research should quantify follow-up burden and evaluate newer suture technologies.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to compare absorbable and non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty, focusing on clinical outcomes (scar quality, complications) and postoperative burden (follow-up visits, discomfort).
METHOD: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Included studies were randomized controlled trials, prospective/retrospective cohort studies, or case series directly comparing suture types. Data were extracted and synthesized qualitatively due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. Absorbable and non-absorbable sutures demonstrated equivalent scar quality and complication rates. While absorbable sutures theoretically reduce follow-up burden by eliminating removal needs, no included study provided quantitative data on visit numbers or resource utilization. A potential reduction in patient discomfort is often cited, but was also not quantitatively measured. Suture technique (running vs. interrupted) influenced early edema but not long-term outcomes. Risk factors for adverse events were technique-dependent rather than suture material-dependent.
CONCLUSION: Both suture types are clinically viable, with absorbable sutures offering logistical advantages. The choice should consider patient preferences and surgical context. Future research should quantify follow-up burden and evaluate newer suture technologies.