INTRODUCTION:Periocular rejuvenation is the most common aesthetic plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to determine effects of micropunch blepharopeeling (MBP) approach vs blepharoplasty (BP) in periocular rejuvenation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a clinical trial study on 22 patients who underwent periorbital rejuvenation referred to University Skin Clinics. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of blepharoplasty or micropunch blepharopeeling. After procedure, all patients were followed in 2 weeks and 2 months and were asked about complications. Patients' satisfaction was scored based on 5-grade scale. Physician satisfaction was assessed based on patients' photographs taken before and 2 months after surgery based on 4-grade scale. RESULTS: The mean age of group MBP was 48.45 ± 7.71 and group BP was 45.45 ± 7.20 (P-value = .36) and Fitzpatrick skin type was not significantly different. Scar was significantly different between groups that 4 (36.4%) patients of BP complained from scars, while none of MBP had significant scar (P-value = .04). Patients were statistically more satisfied with MBP in terms of symmetry, pain, and scar (P-value = .048, .040, and<.001, respectively). Also, MBP was significantly more satisfying for physicians in terms of symmetry and scar (P-value = .047 and <.001, respectively). CONCLUSION:Micropunch blepharopeeling can be considered as an acceptable procedure of upper eyelid rejuvenation mentioned by patients and physicians. Micropunch blepharopeeling causes fewer scars, better symmetry, and less pain.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Periocular rejuvenation is the most common aesthetic plastic surgery. The aim of this study was to determine effects of micropunch blepharopeeling (MBP) approach vs blepharoplasty (BP) in periocular rejuvenation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a clinical trial study on 22 patients who underwent periorbital rejuvenation referred to University Skin Clinics. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of blepharoplasty or micropunch blepharopeeling. After procedure, all patients were followed in 2 weeks and 2 months and were asked about complications. Patients' satisfaction was scored based on 5-grade scale. Physician satisfaction was assessed based on patients' photographs taken before and 2 months after surgery based on 4-grade scale. RESULTS: The mean age of group MBP was 48.45 ± 7.71 and group BP was 45.45 ± 7.20 (P-value = .36) and Fitzpatrick skin type was not significantly different. Scar was significantly different between groups that 4 (36.4%) patients of BP complained from scars, while none of MBP had significant scar (P-value = .04). Patients were statistically more satisfied with MBP in terms of symmetry, pain, and scar (P-value = .048, .040, and<.001, respectively). Also, MBP was significantly more satisfying for physicians in terms of symmetry and scar (P-value = .047 and <.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Micropunch blepharopeeling can be considered as an acceptable procedure of upper eyelid rejuvenation mentioned by patients and physicians. Micropunch blepharopeeling causes fewer scars, better symmetry, and less pain.