• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Technology
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
    • SUO Corner
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Sutures Make Differences in Complications, Revision of Blepharoplasties

by Ed Susman • April 1, 2007

  • Tweet
  • Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Among the individuals whose surgery was closed with 5-0 running, locking polyprolene, 8 patients (17%) developed milia; 2 patients (4.4%) had standing cone deformities; no patient had scarring; 1 patients (2.2%) had erythema; none of the patients had suture marks; and minor hematoma was absent.

You Might Also Like

  • Revision Sinus Surgery Poses Unique Challenges
  • In-Office Injection Laryngoplasty: Good Results, but Complications More Likely
  • Rhinoplasty Experts on Trends in Revision Surgery, Avoiding Legal Pitfalls
  • Keeping Rhinoplasty Complications to a Minimum
Explore This Issue
April 2007

Among the persons whose surgery was closed with 6-0 running plain gut, 12 patients (6.7%) developed milia; none had standing cone deformities; 5 patients (2.8%) had scarring; 16 patients (9%) had erythema; 3 patients (1.6%) had suture marks; and minor hematoma occurred in 1 patient (0.5%).

Of the patients whose surgery was closed with 6-0 fast-absorbing gut, 2-0 simple interrupted 5-0 polyprolene, 9 (2%) developed milia; none had standing cone deformities; 1 patient (0.2%) had scarring; 10 patients (2.1%) had erythema; 2 patients (0.4%) had suture marks; and minor hematoma occurred in 2 patients (0.4%).

None of the patients in any of the groups developed a major hematoma, infection, or dehiscence, Dr. Joshi said.

Interpretation of the Data

We found that there were significant [p < 0.05] differences between materials used in the development of milia, persistent scarring, and erythema. The results that saw erythema associated with plain gut were similar to our clinical experience. We found that the erythema was enhanced by the use of Neosporin use postoperatively in these patients. We now tell our patients not to use Neosporin postoperatively.

This is a large series of more than 800 patients who underwent upper lid blepharoplasty. We found significant differences between sutures. The study was performed by the same author using similar technique to try to minimize variations in terms of techniques, Dr. Joshi said.

Milia and standing cone deformity were the most common complications of upper lid blepharoplasty, he said in discussing the study. Subcuticular Prolene and running fast-absorbing gut resulted in nearly equal rates of milia, and the lowest of the four groups. Standing cone deformity rates were highest with subcuticular Prolene and running locking Prolene. Erythema and scarring appear to be associated with plain gut sutures versus the other sutures.

Dr. Joshi said that the study results are not expected to change general clinical practice. We don’t expect that facial plastic surgeons or surgeons who perform these aesthetic procedures are going to change their material or technique. We just offer this as a topic for consideration for further studies. Whether we can apply these results to other areas of the face remains to be seen, he said. He noted that one of the confounding factors in the study is that the primary author was able to classify groups into whatever type of closure they should get; additionally, scarring could have been affected by the method of fat excision used by the investigator.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Articles, Clinical, Features Issue: April 2007

You Might Also Like:

  • Revision Sinus Surgery Poses Unique Challenges
  • In-Office Injection Laryngoplasty: Good Results, but Complications More Likely
  • Rhinoplasty Experts on Trends in Revision Surgery, Avoiding Legal Pitfalls
  • Keeping Rhinoplasty Complications to a Minimum

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

More and more medical trainees are taking dedicated, prolonged gap years. Did you?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • Is the SLOR in Otolaryngology Residency Applications Contributing to Rural Disparities?
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of the ENTtoday Editorial Board
  • A Resident’s View of AI in Otolaryngology
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Resident Pearls: Pediatric Otolaryngologists Share Tips for Safer, Smarter Tonsillectomies
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • Office Laryngoscopy Is Not Aerosol Generating When Evaluated by Optical Particle Sizer
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Top 10 LARY and LIO Articles of 2024
    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?
    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment
    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck
    • Short-Term Efficacy of Biologics in Recalcitrant AFRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • The Devaluation of Otolaryngology: An Evaluation of CMS’s Involvement in Physician Reimbursement
    • Embolized Middle Meningeal Artery as a Surgical Landmark in Infratemporal Fossa
    • Lord of the (Magnetic) Rings: Rigid Bronchoscopy for Aspirated Magnetic Foreign Bodies in Tertiary Bronchi
    • What Otolaryngologists Can Learn from Athletes

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2026 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939