Skip to main content
Log in

The open sky approach to brow suspension surgery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Journal of Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was conducted to review the results of the open sky approach to frontalis suspension surgery for upper eyelid ptosis and reduced levator function. A retrospective, non-comparative audit in which all patients undergoing open sky approach frontalis suspension surgery with full-thickness skin crease incision and tarsal fixation of suspension material (SM). Outcomes reported include: upper eyelid height, pretarsal show, skin crease depth and contour based on postoperative standardised photographs. We reviewed 616 consecutive ptosis procedures over a 5-year period, of which 31 involved frontalis suspension (18 patients: seven female, 11 male). Mean age was 45.7 ± 26.7 years. SMs used included: silicon rod (n = 21), autogenous fascia lata (n = 8) and polytetrafluoroethylene (n = 2). Upper eyelid height significantly improved from 1.12 ± 1.2 to 3.2 ± 1.3 mm post-surgery (P ≤ 0.0001). Pretarsal show was significantly higher preoperatively (7.4 ± 2.3 mm) compared to postoperative measurements (5.6 ± 2.4 mm) (P = 0.005). Of the total cases, 84% had an improvement in skin crease depth, with 40.6% having postoperative symmetry with the contralateral eyelid. A sectoral droop, flattened and normal contour were seen in 12.9%, 22.9% and 58.1% post-surgery compared with 22.9%, 61.3% and 12.9% pre-surgery. The surgical revision rate was 16.1%, indications included: undercorrection (n = 3), stitch granuloma (n = 1) and wound dehiscence (n = 1). All cases requiring revision surgery had undergone unilateral surgery with silicon rod. The open sky approach significantly improves upper eyelid height and pretarsal show. In addition, the depth and height of the skin crease are improved and in cases of both unilateral and bilateral surgery this technique produces good symmetry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dransart HN (1880) Un cas de blépharoptose opéré par un procédé spécial à l’auteur. Ann Oculist 84:88

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hashemi H, KhabazKhoob M, Yazdani K, Mehravaran S, Mohammad K, Fotouhi A (2010) White-to-white corneal diameter in the Tehran Eye Study. Cornea 29(1):9–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. www.xlstat.com accessed online, Accessed 06/11/2010.

  4. Payr E (1909) Plastik Mittels freier Faszien transplantation bei Ptosis med Verein Freifswald. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 35:822

    Google Scholar 

  5. Crawford J (1977) Repair of ptosis using frontalis muscle and fascia lata: a 20-year review. Ophthalmic Surg 8:31–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Beard C (1978) Advancements in ptosis surgery. Clin Plast Surg 5(4):537–545

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kemp EG, James CR, Collin JR (1986) Brow suspension in the management of ptosis: an analysis of over 100 cases. Trans Ophthalmol Soc 105(Pt 1):84–87

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lam D, Ng JSK, Cheng GPM, Li RTH (1998) Autogenous Palmaris longus tendon as frontalis suspension material for ptosis correction in children. Am J Ophthalmol 126:109–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wasserman B, Sprunger DT, Helveston EM (2001) Comparison of materials used in frontalis suspension. Arch Ophthalmol 119:687–691

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Can I, Can B, Yarangümeli A, Inan Y, Kural G (1996) Ptosis surgery using Mersilene mesh suspensory material. Eur J Ophthalmol 6(2):150–154

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Downes RN, Collin JR (1990) The Mersilene mesh ptosis sling. Eye (Lond) 4(3):456–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hintschich CR, Zürcher M, Collin JR (1995) Mersilene mesh brow suspension: efficiency and complications. Mersilene mesh brow suspension: efficiency and complications. Br J Ophthalmol 79(4):358–361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Detorakis ET, Tsilimbaris MK (2009) Successful conservative management of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene band exposure in frontalis suspension. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 25(5):416–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wei YH, Liao SL (2009) Frontalis suspension using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: results of different surgical designs. J Formos Med Assoc 108(12):943–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zweep H, Spauwen PH (1992) Evaluation of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) and autogenous fascia lata in frontalis suspension: a comparative clinical study. Acta Chir Plast 34:129–137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Garrott H, Aristodemou P, Sinclair N, Lane C, Harrad R (2010) Long-term efficacy of 2–0 Prolene brow suspensions for congenital ptosis. Eye (Lond) 24(1):175–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Carter S, Meecham WJ, Steiff SR (1996) Silicone frontalis slings for the correction of blepharoptosis: indications and efficacy. Ophthalmology 103:623–630

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Goldberger S, Conn H, Lemor M (1991) Double rhomboid silicone rod frontalis suspension. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 7:48–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lamont M, Tyers AG (2010) Silicone sling allows adjustable ptosis correction in children and in adults at risk of corneal exposure. Orbit 29(2):102–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. O’Reilly J, Lanigan B, Bowell R, O’Keefe M (1998) Congenital ptosis: long-term results using stored fascia lata. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76(3):346–348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patrinely J, Anderson RL (1986) The septal pulley in frontalis suspension. Arch Ophthalmol 104:1707–1710

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mauriello JJ, Abdelsalam A (1998) Effectiveness of homologous cadaveric fascia lata and role of suture fixation to tarsus in frontalis suspension. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 14:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fox SA (1968) A new frontalis skin sling for ptosis. Am J Ophthalmol 65(3):359–362

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lelli GJ Jr, Musch DC, Frueh BR, Nelson CC (2009) Outcomes in silicone rod frontalis suspension surgery for high-risk noncongenital blepharoptosis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 25(5):361–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ben Simon GJ, Macedo AA, Schwarcz RM, Wang DY, McCann JD, Goldberg RA (2005) Frontalis suspension for upper eyelid ptosis: evaluation of different surgical designs and suture material. Am J Ophthalmol 140(5):877–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dailey R, Wilson DJ, Wobig JL (1991) Transconjunctival frontalis suspension (TCFS). Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 7:289–297

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Loff H, Wobig JL, Dailey RA (1999) Transconjunctival frontalis suspension: a clinical evaluation. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 15:349–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. DeMartelaere SL, Blaydon SM, Cruz AA, Amato MM, Shore JW (2007) Broad fascia fixation enhances frontalis suspension. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 23(4):279–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. El-Toukhy E, Salaem M, El-Shewy T, Abou-Steit M, Levine M (2001) Mersilene mesh sling as an alternative to autogenous fascia lata in the management of ptosis. Eye (Lond) 15(2):178–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leone CJ, Shore JW, Van-Gemert JV (1981) Silicone rod frontalis sling for the correction of blepharoptosis. Ophthalmic Surg 12:881–887

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leibovitch I, Leibovitch L, Dray JP (2003) Long-term results of frontalis suspension using autogenous fascia lata for congenital ptosis in children under 3 years of age. Am J Ophthalmol 136:866–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yagci A, Egrilmez S (2003) Comparison of cosmetic results in frontalis sling operations: the eyelid crease incision versus the supralash stab incision. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 40(4):213–216

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bagheri A, Aletaha M, Saloor H, Yazdani S (2007) A randomized clinical trial of two methods of fascia lata suspension in congenital ptosis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 23(3):217–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Katowitz JA (1979) Frontalis suspension in congenital ptosis using a polyfilament, cable-type suture. Arch Ophthalmol 97(9):1659–1663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Metha P, Patel P, Olver JM (2004) Functional results and complications of Polyester mesh use for frontalis suspension ptosis surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 88:361–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wagner R, Mauriello JA Jr, Nelson LB et al (1984) Treatment of congenital ptosis with frontalis suspension: a comparison of suspensory materials. Ophthalmology 91:245–248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Morris CL, Buckley EG, Enyedi LB, Stinnett S, Freedman SE (2008) Safety and efficacy of silicone rod frontalis suspension surgery for childhood ptosis repair. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 45(5):280–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

The authors confirm that there are no conflicts of interests nor do the authors have any financial declarations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan H. Norris.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Norris, J.H., Malhotra, R. The open sky approach to brow suspension surgery. Eur J Plast Surg 35, 433–440 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-011-0629-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00238-011-0629-3

Keywords

Navigation