Scholarlink

Background <p>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.</p> Objective <p>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).</p> Method <p>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.</p> Results <p>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.</p> Conclusion <p>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.</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

Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures in upper eyelid blepharoplasty: a systematic review of clinical outcomes and follow-up burden

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月8日

查看全文
  • Amirabbas Safaripour,
  • Sina Baghi Keshtan,
  • Elahe Boumeri,
  • Motahare Alisofi,
  • Ali Rabiei,
  • Shahin Dehvari,
  • Mahmoud Reza Rahimi Barghani,
  • Akram Soltanzadeh

摘要

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.