A One-Stage Correction of the Blepharophimosis Syndrome Using a Standard Combination of Surgical Techniques

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a one-stage treatment for the blepharophimosis-ptosis-epicanthus inversus syndrome (BPES) using a combination of standard surgical techniques. Methods This is a retrospective interventional case series study of 21 BPES patients with a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Aesthetic plastic surgery 2011-10, Vol.35 (5), p.820-827
Hauptverfasser: Sebastiá, Roberto, Herzog Neto, Guilherme, Fallico, Ester, Lessa, Sergio, Solari, Helena Parente, Ventura, Marcelo Palis
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a one-stage treatment for the blepharophimosis-ptosis-epicanthus inversus syndrome (BPES) using a combination of standard surgical techniques. Methods This is a retrospective interventional case series study of 21 BPES patients with a 1-year minimum follow-up period. The one-stage intervention combined three different surgical procedures in the following order: Z-epicanthoplasty for the epicanthus, transnasal wiring of the medial canthal ligaments for the telecanthus, and a bilateral fascia lata sling for ptosis correction. Preoperative and postoperative measurements of the horizontal lid fissure length (HFL), vertical lid fissure width (VFW), nasal intercanthal distance (ICD), and the ratio between the intercanthal distance and the horizontal fissure length (ICD/HFL) were analyzed using Student’s t test for paired variables. Results The mean preoperative measurements were 4.95 ± 1.13 mm for the VFW, 20.90 ± 2.14 mm for the HFL, 42.45 ± 2.19 mm for the ICD, and 2.04 ± 0.14 mm for the ICD/HFL ratio. The mean postoperative measurements were 7.93 ± 1.02 mm for the VFW, 26.36 ± 1.40 mm for the HFL, 32.07 ± 1.96 mm for the ICD, and 1.23 ± 0.09 mm for the ICD/HFL ratio. All these values and their differences were statistically significant ( P  
ISSN:0364-216X
1432-5241
DOI:10.1007/s00266-011-9702-3