PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of the modified Hotz procedure alone and combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty for correction of epiblepharon. METHODS:Seventy-one Chinese patients who underwent epiblepharon repair were divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 33 patients (59 eyes) were operated on with the modified Hotz procedure. In group 2, 38 patients (71 eyes) were operated on with themodified Hotz procedure combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty. Treatment outcomes were classified as "excellent" with no cilium-ocular surface touching, "fair" with 5 or fewer cilia-ocular surface touchings, and "poor" with more than 5 cilia-ocular surface touchings. Incision scars were evaluated by the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the age or sex distribution between the two groups. For group 1, the outcome was excellent for 46 eyes (78%) and fair or poor for 13 eyes (22%). For group 2, the outcome was excellent for 70 eyes (98.6%) and fair for only 1 eye (1.4%). Thus, group 2 had significantly more excellent outcomes compared with group 1 (p < 0.001). The Vancouver scar scale of the lower eyelids in group 1 was 1.10 ± 0.30 and 1.04 ± 0.20 in group 2 after correcting for the follow-up period (p = 0.292). The medial canthus Vancouver scar scale in group 2 was 1.13 ± 0.37, which was not different from the lower eyelid Vancouver scar scale (p = 0.471). CONCLUSIONS: The modified Hotz procedure combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty is more effective in correcting lower eyelid epiblepharon than the modified Hotz procedure alone. The combined procedure does not produce obvious lower eyelid or medial canthus scars.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of the modified Hotz procedure alone and combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty for correction of epiblepharon. METHODS: Seventy-one Chinese patients who underwent epiblepharon repair were divided into 2 groups. In group 1, 33 patients (59 eyes) were operated on with the modified Hotz procedure. In group 2, 38 patients (71 eyes) were operated on with the modified Hotz procedure combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty. Treatment outcomes were classified as "excellent" with no cilium-ocular surface touching, "fair" with 5 or fewer cilia-ocular surface touchings, and "poor" with more than 5 cilia-ocular surface touchings. Incision scars were evaluated by the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the age or sex distribution between the two groups. For group 1, the outcome was excellent for 46 eyes (78%) and fair or poor for 13 eyes (22%). For group 2, the outcome was excellent for 70 eyes (98.6%) and fair for only 1 eye (1.4%). Thus, group 2 had significantly more excellent outcomes compared with group 1 (p < 0.001). The Vancouver scar scale of the lower eyelids in group 1 was 1.10 ± 0.30 and 1.04 ± 0.20 in group 2 after correcting for the follow-up period (p = 0.292). The medial canthus Vancouver scar scale in group 2 was 1.13 ± 0.37, which was not different from the lower eyelid Vancouver scar scale (p = 0.471). CONCLUSIONS: The modified Hotz procedure combined with modified Z-epicanthoplasty is more effective in correcting lower eyelid epiblepharon than the modified Hotz procedure alone. The combined procedure does not produce obvious lower eyelid or medial canthus scars.