Three Different Anesthesia Approaches in Blepharoptosis Surgery

Ziyi Guo, MD; David Dae Hwan Park, MD, PhD; Kisoo Park, MD; Naiqiang Guo, MD

Disclosures

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(4):e2136 

In This Article

Results

A total of 101 patients (48 female and 53 male) were admitted to hospital for treatment, including 38, 34, and 29 patients with local, general, and sedative anesthesia, respectively. The mean age of the patients was 35.75 ± 20.76 (4–80 years). The average follow-up period was 23 months (Table 1).

The mean preoperative MRD1 of the patients who received general, local, and sedative anesthesia was 0.35, 0.90, and 0.47 mm, respectively (Table 2), and preoperative levator fuction of the patients was 6.36, 8.04, and 5.73 mm. The mean postoperative MRD1 value of the general, local, and sedative anesthesia groups was 3.01, 3.28, and 3.62 mm, respectively (Table 3).

The preoperative and postoperative CEAs were also checked (Table 4 and Table 5). The improvement of the MRD1 and CEA was slightly different in the 3 techniques; the degree of improvement was greater in the sedative anesthesia approach group than in the other 2 anesthesia techniques. The improvement of the MRD1 was 3.18, 2.66, and 2.40 mm in the sedative, general, and local anesthesia approaches, respectively (Table 6). The CEA was increased by 18%, 15.5%, and 12.1% for the sedative, general, and local groups, respectively (Table 7).

The outcomes of MRD1 for the sedative anesthesia technique were considered excellent in 83.3% of cases, good in 11.9%, fair in 2.4%, and poor in 2.4% (Table 3). The outcomes for the general anesthesia approach were excellent in 46.7% of cases, good in 35%, fair in 18.3%, and no poor cases (Table 3). The outcomes for the local anesthesia approach were excellent in 64% of cases, good in 24%, fair in 12%, and no poor case (Table 3).

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE

processing....