Scholarlink

Background <p>Despite progress in eye rejuvenation research, there is limited study on the aesthetics of the lower-lid pretarsal rolls. This study aims to explore the distribution and aesthetic relationship between different lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and eye shapes, offering guidance for personalized lower-lid pretarsal rolls reconstruction in clinical practice.</p> Methods <p>A total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.</p> Results <p>The distribution of lower-lid pretarsal rolls types was as follows: parallel (28.99%), linear (9.56%), crescent (18.55%), and fishtail (42.91%). For eye types, Phoenix eyes accounted for 31.90%, Almond eyes 31.95%, Elongated eyes 16.57%, Sagging eyes 14.44%, and Hanging eyes 5.14%. Among eye types, Phoenix eyes preferred the parallel type (3.60 ± 0.98), while fishtail scored lowest (3.23 ± 1.13). Hanging eyes favored the linear type (3.53 ± 1.20), while fishtail had the lowest score (2.93 ± 0.99). Crescent types were preferred for Elongated eyes (3.46 ± 1.10), while linear types scored the lowest (2.60 ± 1.26). Parallel types were preferred for Sagging eyes (3.58 ± 1.08), and fishtail types scored the lowest (2.53 ± 1.03). Almond eyes had relatively high scores for all lower-lid pretarsal rolls types.</p> Conclusion <p>A total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.</p> No Level Assigned <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors<a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Achieving Natural Aesthetics in Lower-Lid Pretarsal Rolls Reconstruction: A Personalized Approach Based on Eye Shape

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月9日

查看全文
  • Gang Su,
  • Yongxiang Teng,
  • Haifeng Yao,
  • Jing Wang,
  • Yihang Liu,
  • Jiacheng Li,
  • Yuli Li,
  • Zhaohui Zhai

摘要

Background

Despite progress in eye rejuvenation research, there is limited study on the aesthetics of the lower-lid pretarsal rolls. This study aims to explore the distribution and aesthetic relationship between different lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and eye shapes, offering guidance for personalized lower-lid pretarsal rolls reconstruction in clinical practice.

Methods

A total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.

Results

The distribution of lower-lid pretarsal rolls types was as follows: parallel (28.99%), linear (9.56%), crescent (18.55%), and fishtail (42.91%). For eye types, Phoenix eyes accounted for 31.90%, Almond eyes 31.95%, Elongated eyes 16.57%, Sagging eyes 14.44%, and Hanging eyes 5.14%. Among eye types, Phoenix eyes preferred the parallel type (3.60 ± 0.98), while fishtail scored lowest (3.23 ± 1.13). Hanging eyes favored the linear type (3.53 ± 1.20), while fishtail had the lowest score (2.93 ± 0.99). Crescent types were preferred for Elongated eyes (3.46 ± 1.10), while linear types scored the lowest (2.60 ± 1.26). Parallel types were preferred for Sagging eyes (3.58 ± 1.08), and fishtail types scored the lowest (2.53 ± 1.03). Almond eyes had relatively high scores for all lower-lid pretarsal rolls types.

Conclusion

A total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.

No Level Assigned

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authorswww.springer.com/00266.