Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of external levator advancement and Müller muscle–conjunctival resection in aponeurotic blepharoptosis repair. Methods: Mild to moderate blepharoptosis patients with good levator function and a positive phenylephrine test were randomized to upper blepharoplasty with either external levator advancement or Müller muscle–conjunctival resection. The primary outcome was marginal reflex distance 1 at 1 month after surgery. Secondary outcomes were cosmetic outcome, complications, and operating room time. Results: Forty patients were enrolled, six men and 34 women, with an average age of 62.4 years. The mean preoperative marginal reflex distance 1 in the levator group (39 eyes/20 subjects) and the Müller group (38 eyes/20 subjects) was 1.2 ± 0.8 mm and 1.5 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. The mean postoperative marginal reflex distance 1 in the levator and Müller groups was 3.0 ± 1.0 mm and 3.2 ± 1.0 mm, respectively. The difference in the mean change was 0.008, and was not statistically different (95 percent CI, −0.59 to 0.61; p = 0.978). The mean cosmetic outcome was 2.69 ± 0.81 for the levator group and 3.07 ± 0.68 for the Müller group, with a mean difference of 0.373 (95 percent CI, 0.06 to 0.69; p = 0.020). The average operating room time was 75 ± 19.2 minutes for the levator group and 71 ± 23.6 minutes for the Müller group (p = 0.439). There were four eyes that underwent reoperation, three in the levator group (7.7 percent) and one in the Müller group (2.6 percent). Conclusions: External elevator advancement and Müller muscle–conjunctival resection are both effective in correction of mild to moderate blepharoptosis. However, Müller muscle–conjunctival resection yields a statistically significant better cosmetic outcome and causes less eyelid asymmetry. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.