2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2005.03.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

External Levator Advancement vs Müller’s Muscle–Conjunctival Resection for Correction of Upper Eyelid Involutional Ptosis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

4
95
1
6

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 141 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
4
95
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…1 There is only one comparative study of anterior levator advancement vs MMCR for the correction of involutional ptosis, which reported a 22% lower revision rate for MMCR vs anterior levator advancement and a statistically better cosmetic outcome. 15 This is consistent with other reports of Muller's muscle resection, which suggest a generally higher success rate (85-98%) compared with that for anterior approach levator advancement. [10][11][12]16 To our knowledge, the current series is the largest to date assessing the success of isolated Muller resection.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…1 There is only one comparative study of anterior levator advancement vs MMCR for the correction of involutional ptosis, which reported a 22% lower revision rate for MMCR vs anterior levator advancement and a statistically better cosmetic outcome. 15 This is consistent with other reports of Muller's muscle resection, which suggest a generally higher success rate (85-98%) compared with that for anterior approach levator advancement. [10][11][12]16 To our knowledge, the current series is the largest to date assessing the success of isolated Muller resection.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Surgeries for the correction of dysfunctions in the elevation of the upper eyelid usually incise the STM along with the LPSM (Shields and Putterman 2003), although some case reports have shown unsuccessful results using similar surgical techniques (Ben Simon et al 2005). We have analyzed some of the patterns of anatomical variations involving the human STM and, based upon our morphometrical analyses of carefully dissected specimens, we propose an original morphological classification of the STM.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The only comparative study of anterior approach levator advancement vs MMCR revealed that patients who underwent anterior levator advancement had significantly lower preoperative MRD but were able to attain similar postoperative outcomes as the MMCR group. 2 The result from this study implied that advancement of the levator aponeurosis with intraoperative adjustment of eyelid height is a more powerful surgical procedure than MMCR that could be performed in any degree of involutional ptosis with adequate LF. The aponeurosis was thought to be the main transmitter of contraction of the levator to the tarsus, and to ignore the aponeurotic defect was considered an illogical solution for correcting involutional ptosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…A comparative study of anterior levator advancement vs MMCR reported a 22% lower revision rate for MMCR and a statistically better outcome. 2 On the basis of the theory that the aponeurosis is the main transmitter of contraction of the levator to tarsus, techniques for levator aponeurosis advancement through posterior approach have been previously described. [3][4][5][6][7] These techniques avoid resection of conjunctiva which prevents dry eyes, and may be more effective in patients with negative response to phenylephrine test as well as correcting severe ptosis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%