Korean J Ophthalmol > Volume 39(1); 2025 > Article
Rafizadeh, Hashemian, Khorrami-Nejad, Hadi, and Ghochani: The Effect of Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty on Corneal Biomechanical Parameters

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the effect of lower eyelid blepharoplasty (LEB) surgery on corneal biomechanical parameters before and 4 months after the procedure.

Methods

In this prospective longitudinal study, corneal biomechanical parameters measured by Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology device were evaluated before and 4 months after LEB surgery.

Results

The study included 19 eyelids of the right eyes of 19 patients who underwent LEB, with a mean age of 49.0 ± 10.1 years (range, 37-72 years). Four months after the procedure, significant increases were observed in the first applanation time (p = 0.007), second applanation time (p < 0.001), highest concavity time (p = 0.004), intraocular pressure (p = 0.009), and biomechanical-compensated intraocular pressure (p = 0.007). In addition, the absolute value of highest concavity delta arc length and stress-strain index showed a significant decrease after the LEB (p = 0.021 and p = 0.037, respectively). Other corneal biomechanical parameters did not show significant differences following the LEB procedure (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The resection and repositioning of the fat pockets in LEB lead to biomechanical changes of the cornea in the direction of increasing corneal stiffness.

Aging affects the eyelids and periorbital tissues, which are often a primary concern for individuals seeking facial rejuvenation [1]. While patients may focus their complaints on the eyelids, aging is a complex process that affects the entire face. The initial cosmetic concerns expressed by individuals undergoing the aging process often pertain to alterations in the lower eyelid and midface regions [2,3]. Lower eyelid blepharoplasty (LEB) is a frequently sought-after surgical procedure, with the majority of patients seeking consultation due to age-related alterations in the region, such as the presence of tear trough deformities, nasojugal folds, malar festoons, herniated orbital fat, orbicularis laxity or hypertrophy, lower lid laxity, or excess skin [4-6].
In general, there are two main techniques for LEB [7]. The first is the transcutaneous approach, which involves making an external skin incision to address excess skin while providing access to the orbicularis muscle, orbital septum, and the underlying fat pockets. The second is the transconjunctival approach, which allows the surgeon to avoid disrupting the anterior and middle eyelid lamellae while accessing the fat compartments. Historically, the decision between the two has been primarily based on a surgeon’s level of experience and the requirement for skin resection [8,9]. Regardless of the approach taken, both techniques offer the ability to address herniated orbital fat and midface volume loss. Techniques such as fat removal, fat repositioning, and augmentation using dermal fillers or autologous fat grafting have gained popularity as effective methods for addressing these concerns [10].
Complications arising from a LEB typically involve lid malpositioning, ectropion, and disruption of lamellar structures [9,11]. To provide a systematic approach to assessing and managing these complications, Lelli and Lisman [12] developed an organizational tool that categorizes these complications into early, intermediate, and late stages. The impact of corneal biomechanics on intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement, refractive surgery results, and the progression of ectatic diseases has been extensively reported in the literature. The heightened focus on corneal biomechanics has spurred the development and refinement of various in vivo measurement methods. Currently, available technologies include optical/imaging systems combined with noncontact air-puff tonometry [13,14].
Blepharoplasty procedures, which involve modifications to the extraocular tissues, may cause pressure redistribution on the corneal tissue [15-17]. Instruments that assess corneal biomechanics, such as the Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology (Corvis ST; Oculus), can be employed to detect this change. The impact of corneal biomechanics on IOP measurement, refractive surgery results, and the progression of ectatic diseases has been extensively reported in the literature [18,19]. In addition, several studies have investigated the effect of upper eyelid surgery on various corneal properties, including corneal morphology and biomechanics [15-17,20-24]. These biomechanical changes can potentially influence corneal refraction and astigmatism, leading to long-standing blurred vision [25,26]. However, no study investigated the effect of LEB on corneal biomechanical properties [17]. The rationale stems from the understanding that the eyelids and cornea have a close anatomical relationship, with the eyelids exerting a certain degree of pressure on the corneal surface. LEB surgery, which involves the resection and repositioning of lower eyelid fat pads, could conceivably alter this pressure distribution. This alteration in eyelid pressure, coupled with potential changes in blinking patterns post-surgery, might lead to changes in the biomechanical properties of the cornea, such as stiffness and curvature. Therefore, this study aims to explore whether LEB surgery induces measurable changes in corneal biomechanics using the Corvis ST, a device that assesses corneal deformation in response to an air puff.

Materials and Methods

Ethics statement

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences before data collection to review patient records and utilize the data (No. IR.TUMS.FARABIH.REC.1401.028). All participants provided written informed consent to use their data for research purposes. The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study participants

The current research was a prospective study conducted in the oculoplastic division of Farabi Eye Hospital (Tehran, Iran). To be eligible for participation, individuals had to be over 35 years old, reflecting the target population for LEB, which is typically sought for age-related cosmetic concerns. Additionally, participants had to have undergone LEB surgery, the primary focus of the study. Furthermore, their best-corrected distance visual acuity had to be equal to or greater than 20 / 40, ensuring adequate visual function and minimizing the potential influence of preexisting visual impairments on corneal biomechanics. To eliminate the potential impact of previous surgeries on corneal biomechanics, only patients undergoing their first LEB procedure were included. Lastly, a minimum follow-up period of postoperative 4 months was mandatory to allow sufficient time for corneal biomechanical changes to manifest and stabilize. Patients were excluded if any of the following criteria applied: corneal ectatic diseases, history of previous corneal refractive surgery, pterygium, severe dry eye, posterior segment pathologies, such as diabetic retinopathy or age-related macular degeneration, and glaucoma. Patients were also excluded if they exhibited incomplete eyelid closure and those with poor Bell phenomenon in order to achieve a homogenous study population. In total, 38 eyes of 19 patients underwent surgery, of which only 19 right eyes were included in the study.

Examination protocols

Upon enrollment in the study, all included patients underwent a thorough medical history-taking and standard ophthalmological examination. All study participants were recruited between March 2022 and March 2023. These patients were monitored by the ophthalmologist for 4 months following the procedure. Preoperative and postoperative data of these patients who were followed up for 4 months after LEB surgery were analyzed. Biomechanical examinations were carried out before (upon the day of) and 4 months after the LEB surgery using Corvis ST. Corvis ST is a dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer that applies a concentric air-puff to deform the central cornea while concurrently monitoring the corneal response [27]. The instrument utilizes an ultrahigh-speed camera to capture 140 images of the cornea’s central horizontal meridian over a timeframe of 32 milliseconds, equivalent to the duration of the air puff. The device analyzes the images in real time to derive various dynamic corneal response parameters. These parameters have been extensively studied since the instrument’s introduction into clinical practice in 2010 [28]. This device measure various parameters related to corneal deformation and biomechanics, including: first applanation (A1) deformation amplitude (DA), second applanation (A2) DA, A1 applanation time, A2 applanation time, A1 velocity, A2 velocity, A1 deflection length, A2 deflection length, A1 deflection amp, A2 deflection amplitude, A1 delta arc (dArc) length, A2 dArc length, A1 deflection area, A2 deflection area, highest concavity (HC) dArc length, HC DA, HC deflection length, HC deflection amplitude, HC deflection area, HC time peak distance, DA max deflection amplitude, max deflection amplitude, max dArc length max, max inverse radius, IOP, biomechanical-compensated IOP (bIOP), pachymetry, pachymetry slope, whole eye movement max, DA ratio max, Ambrosio relational thickness integrated radius, stiffness parameter A1, Corvis Biomechanical Index, and stress-strain index (SSI).

Surgical procedure

The technique performed in this study was lower eyelid transconjunctival blepharoplasty with fat repositioning to subperiosteal space. The primary indication for LEB in all patients was cosmetic concerns related to aging changes in the lower eyelid. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon (SMR). The technique of transconjunctival surgery has been well documented [29]. Before starting the surgery, the patient’s tear through the hollow was marked in a sitting position. The surgery was performed under general anesthesia. At first, traction suture was applied with silk 4-0 thread in the lower eyelid margin, and the lower eyelid was everted by placing a desmar (Moria SA). Then the conjunctiva was incised about 5 to 7 mm below the lower edge of the tarsus with a scalpel blade no. 15, and next, both the conjunctiva and lower eyelid retractors were cut with scissors. Then, the upper edge of the conjunctiva and retractors were pulled upward with silk 4-0 threads. After that, the desmar was removed and placed in the reverse position so that it pulled down the lower eyelid. Then the fat pockets were opened with Stevens scissors. Care was taken during the dissection to preserve the inferior oblique muscle between the medial and central fat pads. The prolapsed medial and lateral fats were resected and then cauterized. Central fat was considered as a flap to be transferred to the subperiosteal space. Then, the orbicularis muscle was pushed back, and the periosteum was exposed. Next, the periosteum was incised at the inferior orbital rim with a scalpel blade no. 15, and the space under the periosteum was dissected using a freer periosteal elevator. Then the central fat flap was transferred to the subperiosteal space using a double-needle Prolon 4-0 thread (Ethicon), and after passing under the tear trough hollow, the needles were removed from the skin and fixed by placing a bolster on the skin. Finally, after checking the bleeding in the surgical site, the conjunctiva was sutured with Vicryl 7-0 thread (Ethicon) and the eye was bandaged with antibiotic ointment. The day after surgery, the dressing was opened, and antibiotic ointment and betamethasone drops were started for the patient every 4 hours. Seven days after the surgery, the suture with bolster was removed.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were administered using IBM SPSS ver. 24 (IBM Corp). The mean ± standard deviation and frequency values were reported for every parameter during postoperative follow-up sessions. The normal distribution of all data was first checked by using the Shapiro-Wilk test. In cases of parametric analysis, the paired t-test was administered to make a comparison between data of the preoperative and postoperative measurements or between consecutive postoperative examinations. When the parametric analysis was not indicated, the Wilcoxon ranked test was executed to compare the values of preoperative and postoperative measurements. A p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

The mean age of 19 patients (16 female patients, 84.2%; 3 male patients, 15.8%) was 49.0 ± 10.1 years (range, 37-72 years). Comparison of the A1 and A2 DA, time, velocity, deflection length, deflection amplitude, dArc length, and deflection area parameters before and 4 months after surgery are shown in Table 1. Four months following surgery, A1 and A2 time increased by −0.328 ± 0.467 milliseconds (p = 0.007) and −0.387 ± 0.408 milliseconds (p = 0.001), respectively. Also, A1 DA increased by −0.013 ± 0.028 mm, which was nearly statistically significant (p = 0.054).
Comparison of the HC length, amplitude, area, and time parameters before and 4 months after surgery are reported in Table 2. As shown in this table, 4 months after surgery, the absolute value of the HC dArc length decreased (−0.012 ± 0.020 mm), but the HC time increased (−0.389 ± 0.505 milliseconds), which were both statistically significant (p = 0.021 and p = 0.004, respectively). Also, the reduction of the HC deflection length (0.131 ± 0.273 mm) and area (0.233 ± 0.517 mm2) following surgery were nearly significant (p = 0.058 and p = 0.065, respectively).
Comparison of the peak distance, maximum DA, deflection amplitude, maximum dArc length, and maximum inverse radius parameters before and 4 months after surgery are reported in Table 3. As shown in this table, none of these parameters changes significantly following surgery (all p > 0.05).
Comparison of IOP, pachymetry, and other biomechanics indexes before and 4 months after surgery are reported in Table 4. Of these parameters, IOP and bIOP increased significantly following surgery (IOP: −2.184 ± 3.228 mmHg, p = 0.009; bIOP: −2.042 ± 2.915 mmHg, p = 0.007). However, the SSI significantly decreased (0.138 ± 0.259) after surgery ( p = 0.037). The mean Corvis Biomechanical Index decreased by 0.070 ± 0.151 following surgery, which was nearly significant ( p = 0.075).

Discussion

The most successful cosmetic eyelid surgery is the surgery that restores the appearance of the patient’s face in a younger and natural way. The possible risks and complications are minimal, and the result is long-term, satisfying both the surgeon and the patient [26]. LEB surgery aims to counteract the effects of aging and gravity on the lid/cheek complex by resectioning and redistributing eyelid fat pockets [30].
The influence of factors like age, certain medical conditions including keratoconus and diabetes, treatments including prostaglandins, and refractive surgeries on corneal biomechanical behavior has now been well studied in the literature [31-33]. Also, numerous studies have explored the impact of corneal biomechanics on the progression of ectatic disorders, refractive surgery outcomes, and IOP measurement [34]. The Corvis ST instrument provides biomechanical parameters of the cornea that are obtained from its inward and outward deformations in response to a single air pulse [35]. Given the interaction between the upper and lower eyelids and the cornea, the LEB procedure might alter the pressure applied by the lower eyelid on the corneal tissue, thereby impacting corneal biomechanical characteristics. In the present study, we investigated the postoperative changes in various corneal biomechanical parameters measured by Corvis ST in patients who underwent LEB surgery. Our results indicated that most corneal biomechanical measurements did not show differences before and after LEB surgery, except A1 and A2 times, HC dArc length, HC time, IOP, bIOP, and SSI. Notably, all the parameters with postoperative significant changes showed a significant increase, while SSI and the absolute value of HC dArc length showed a significant decrease following LEB surgery. Most of these changes were in the direction of increasing the corneal stiffness. While statistically significant, the magnitude of these changes, particularly in IOP and corneal stiffness, might not necessarily translate to clinically significant effects on visual acuity or astigmatism in the short term. However, the long-term implications of these changes, especially in patients with preexisting risk factors for glaucoma or corneal ectasia, warrant further investigation.
Earlier techniques of LEB centered on excision of skin, muscle, and fat through skin or skin-muscle flaps to reshape the lower eyelid. While aesthetically beneficial for many patients, this approach can potentially lead to long-term issues such as abnormal eyelid position, scleral show, rounded palpebral fissures, and hollow lower eyelid area [36]. Currently, LEB surgery focuses more on less aggressive fat removal, fat repositioning using transconjunctival or subciliary approaches, minimal skin excision, and lower lid support through canthopexy and canthoplasty procedures [36,37]. To our knowledge, no study examined the postoperative changes in corneal biomechanical parameters following the LEB surgery.
Most studies on the effects of eyelid surgeries and corneal properties evaluated the corneal changes following upper eyelid blepharoplasty (UEB). They indicated that throughout the UEB procedure, the loss of orbital extra fat may lead to substantial changes in the geometry, morphology, and function of the cornea [38,39]. A comparable impact can be considered for patients who underwent LEB. Only a few studies in the literature investigated the post-operative changes in corneal biomechanical parameters following the UEB procedure. Sommer et al. [17] conducted a prospective study to investigate the effects of UEB surgery on corneal biomechanical properties, as well as topographic and tomographic specifications in 42 eyes of 35 patients. Measurements were taken both preoperatively and postoperatively, with 4-week interval between the two sets of measurements. In addition to the difference in the type of eyelid surgery between the present study and their study, we utilized the Corvis ST device for corneal biomechanical assessment, whereas Sommer et al. [17] employed the ORA device (Reichert Ophthalmic Instrument). Notably, the ORA measures fewer corneal biomechanical indices (corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor) compared to Corvis ST. The authors observed an increase in postoperative corneal hysteresis and corneal resistance factor measurements 4 weeks after the operation, with values rising from 9.4 ± 2.3 to 10.2 ± 2.2 mmHg and from 9.7 ± 2.1 to 10.5 ± 2.2 mmHg, respectively. However, these changes did not reach statistical significance, as evidenced by p-values of 0.100 and 0.072, respectively. Regarding corneal biomechanical indices, we found a significant increase in A1 and A2 times, HC time, IOP, and bIOP. However, the SSI and absolute value of the HC dArc length index showed a significant decrease after the LEB procedure.
Several factors may contribute to the observed changes in corneal biomechanics after LEB. A possible hypothesis is that the resection of the fat pockets and redistribution of their remaining in LEB will reduce the weight of the lower eyelid. By neutralizing this effect of gravity, the strength of the girdling effect of the eyelid, especially in the area of the lower tarsus and the medial and lateral canthal ligaments, is increased, which can increase the application of more pressure on the corneal surface. These changes, along with changes in the blinking pattern, could be the underlying cause of the alteration in corneal biomechanics to increase the cornea’s stiffness [40,41]. The observed increase in IOP after LEB may be related to changes in the eyelid-globe relationship and the dynamics of aqueous humor outflow, although further research is needed to confirm this.
It is notable that Sommer et al. [17] found no significant changes in Goldman-correlated IOP, the corneal compensated IOP after the UEB surgery 4 weeks after the UEB surgery. In contrast, we found that IOP and bIOP measurements significantly increased four months after the LEB procedure (p > 0.001). It can be inferred that the choice of device used to measure corneal biomechanical properties, as well as the timing of measurements taken after the operation, may have an impact on postoperative biomechanical outcomes. Furthermore, our study underscores the importance of preoperative evaluation of IOP in patients scheduled for LEB surgery, particularly those with borderline IOP measurements. The average of IOP increase after LEB surgery in our study was about 2 mmHg, which may not be clinically important in patients with normal IOP, but in people with a history of glaucoma, we should consider this issue.
The major limitation of the present study was its limited sample size and relatively follow-up period. It is reasonable to speculate that a larger sample size and longer follow-up periods could have yielded statistically significant findings for other corneal biomechanical parameters and provided more definitive insights into the long-term clinical implications. Although topical steroids were used for one week after surgery, they can potentially influence corneal biomechanics. Future studies with larger cohorts and extended follow-up are necessary to confirm our findings and further elucidate the long-term effects of LEB on corneal biomechanics. Additionally, future research should investigate the potential influence of preexisting conditions, such as diabetes and connective tissue disorders, on corneal biomechanical changes after LEB.
Despite the lack of prior research on the impact of LEB on corneal structure and function, including corneal biomechanics, the present study yielded noteworthy results. Specifically, significant changes in corneal biomechanical parameters, such as A1 and A2 times, HC dArc length, HC time, IOP, bIOP, and SSI, were observed following LEB surgery. These findings suggest that LEB may have an effect on corneal biomechanics and highlight the need for further investigation in this area.
This is the first study to examine the impact of LEB surgery on corneal biomechanical properties using the Corvis ST device. To assess changes in these properties, preoperative and postoperative measurements were taken using this device. Our findings indicate that the resection and repositioning of the fat pockets in LEB leads to changes in eyelid pressure on the corneal surface, which ultimately causes biomechanical changes of the cornea in the direction of increasing corneal stiffness.

Acknowledgements

None.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest:

None.

Funding:

None.

References

1. Camp MC, Wong WW, Filip Z, et al. A quantitative analysis of periorbital aging with three-dimensional surface imaging. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011;64:148-54.
crossref pmid
2. Buchanan DR, Wulc AE. Contemporary thoughts on lower eyelid/midface aging. Clin Plast Surg 2015;42:1-15.
crossref pmid
3. Bitik O. Chapter 22: cosmetic surgical treatments for the aging face. In: Vargel I, Ozgur FF, Beauty, aging and antiaging. Elsevier; 2022. p. 223-35.
4. Naik MN, Honavar SG, Das S, et al. Blepharoplasty: an overview. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2009;2:6-11.
crossref pmid pmc
5. Davison SP, Iorio ML, Oh C. Transconjunctival lower lid blepharoplasty with and without fat repositioning. Clin Plast Surg 2015;42:51-6.
crossref pmid
6. Pepper JP, Baker SR. Transcutaneous lower blepharoplasty with fat transposition. Clin Plast Surg 2015;42:57-62.
crossref pmid
7. Zoumalan CI, Roostaeian J. Simplifying blepharoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016;137:196e-213e.
crossref pmid
8. Netscher DT, Patrinely JR, Peltier M, et al. Transconjunctival versus transcutaneous lower eyelid blepharoplasty: a prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96:1053-60.
pmid
9. Jacono AA, Moskowitz B. Transconjunctival versus transcutaneous approach in upper and lower blepharoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 2001;17:21-8.
crossref pmid
10. Murri M, Hamill EB, Hauck MJ, Marx DP. An update on lower lid blepharoplasty. Semin Plast Surg 2017;31:46-50.
crossref pmid pmc
11. Rizk SS, Matarasso A. Lower eyelid blepharoplasty: analysis of indications and the treatment of 100 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:1299-308.
crossref pmid
12. Lelli GJ Jr, Lisman RD. Blepharoplasty complications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1007-17.
crossref pmid
13. Ambrosio R Jr, Ramos I, Luz A, et al. Dynamic ultra high speed Scheimpflug imaging for assessing corneal biomechanical properties. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2013;72:99-102.
crossref
14. Curatolo A, Birkenfeld JS, Martinez-Enriquez E, et al. Detecting deformation asymmetries on multiple meridians in an ex vivo keratoconic eye model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2020;61:4723.
15. Zinkernagel MS, Ebneter A, Ammann-Rauch D. Effect of upper eyelid surgery on corneal topography. Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:1610-2.
crossref pmid
16. Kim YK, In JH, Jang SY. Changes in corneal curvature after upper eyelid surgery measured by corneal topography. J Craniofac Surg 2016;27:e235-8.
crossref pmid
17. Sommer F, Untch E, Spoerl E, et al. Effect of upper eyelid blepharoplasty on corneal biomechanical, topographic and tomographic parameters 4 weeks after surgery. Int Ophthalmol 2022;42:113-21.
crossref pmid pdf
18. Ambrosio R Jr, Correia FF, Lopes B, et al. Corneal biomechanics in ectatic diseases: refractive surgery implications. Open Ophthalmol J 2017;11:176-93.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
19. Roberts CJ, Dupps WJ Jr. Biomechanics of corneal ectasia and biomechanical treatments. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:991-8.
crossref pmid pmc
20. Brown MS, Siegel IM, Lisman RD. Prospective analysis of changes in corneal topography after upper eyelid surgery. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1999;15:378-83.
crossref pmid
21. Gingold MP, Ehlers WH, Rodgers IR, Hornblass A. Changes in refraction and keratometry after surgery for acquired ptosis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1994;10:241-6.
crossref pmid
22. Holck DE, Dutton JJ, Wehrly SR. Changes in astigmatism after ptosis surgery measured by corneal topography. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1998;14:151-8.
crossref pmid
23. Simsek IB, Yilmaz B, Yildiz S, Artunay O. Effect of upper eyelid blepharoplasty on vision and corneal tomographic changes measured by pentacam. Orbit 2015;34:263-7.
crossref pmid
24. Arslan N, Kocamis SI, Sabur H, Acar M. Evaluation of the effect of dermatochalasis and upper eyelid blepharoplasty surgery on corneal epithelial thickness alterations. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2023;47:647-51.
crossref pmid pdf
25. Parbhu KC, Hawthorne KM, McGwin G Jr, et al. Patient experience with blepharoplasty. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;27:152-4.
crossref pmid
26. Shao W, Byrne P, Harrison A, et al. Persistent blurred vision after blepharoplasty and ptosis repair. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2004;6:155-7.
crossref pmid
27. Salouti R, Bagheri M, Shamsi A, Zamani M. Corneal parameters in healthy subjects assessed by Corvis ST. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2020;15:24-31.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
28. Vinciguerra R, Fernandez-Vega-Cueto L, Poo-Lopez A, et al. The effect of intracorneal ring segments implantation for keratoconus on in vivo corneal biomechanics assessed with the Corvis ST. J Refract Surg 2022;38:264-9.
crossref pmid
29. Zarem HA, Resnick JI. Expanded applications for transconjunctival lower lid blepharoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;88:215-21.
crossref pmid
30. Bhattacharjee K, Ghosh S, Ugradar S, Azhdam AM. Lower eyelid blepharoplasty: an overview. Indian J Ophthalmol 2020;68:2075-83.
crossref pmid pmc
31. Huseynova T, Waring GO 4th, Roberts C, et al. Corneal biomechanics as a function of intraocular pressure and pachymetry by dynamic infrared signal and Scheimpflug imaging analysis in normal eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;157:885-93.
crossref pmid
32. Tian L, Huang YF, Wang LQ, et al. Corneal biomechanical assessment using corneal visualization scheimpf lug technology in keratoconic and normal eyes. J Ophthalmol 2014;2014:147516.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
33. Luce DA. Determining in vivo biomechanical properties of the cornea with an ocular response analyzer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:156-62.
crossref pmid
34. Guo H, Hosseini-Moghaddam SM, Hodge W. Corneal biomechanical properties after SMILE versus FLEX, LASIK, LASEK, or PRK: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 2019;19:167.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
35. Pinero DP, Alcon N. In vivo characterization of corneal biomechanics. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:870-87.
crossref pmid
36. Maffi TR, Chang S, Friedland JA. Traditional lower blepharoplasty: is additional support necessary? A 30-year review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128:265-73.
crossref pmid
37. Codner MA, Wolfli JN, Anzarut A. Primary transcutaneous lower blepharoplasty with routine lateral canthal support: a comprehensive 10-year review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121:241-50.
crossref pmid
38. Kim JW, Lee H, Chang M, et al. What causes increased contrast sensitivity and improved functional visual acuity after upper eyelid blepharoplasty? J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:1582-5.
crossref pmid
39. Heidari M, Haydar AA, Rajabi MT, Rafizadeh SM. Corneal biophysical changes after upper eyelid blepharoplasty and ptosis surgery: a review. BMC Ophthalmol 2023;23:253.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
40. Muniesa M, March A, Sanchez-de-la-Torre M, et al. Corneal biomechanical properties in floppy eyelid syndrome. Cornea 2015;34:521-4.
crossref pmid
41. Shaw AJ, Collins MJ, Davis BA, Carney LG. Eyelid pressure: inferences from corneal topographic changes. Cornea 2009;28:181-8.
crossref pmid

Table 1
Comparison of the A1 and A2 deformation amplitude, time, velocity, deflection length, deflection amplitude, delta arc length, and deflection area parameters before and 4 months after surgery
Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean ± SD Mean difference ± SD p-value*
A1 deformation amplitude (mm) −0.013 ± 0.028 0.054
 Preoperation 0.094 0.157 0.128 ± 0.015
 Postoperation 0.111 0.273 0.141 ± 0.034
A2 deformation amplitude (mm) 0.005 ± 0.070 0.763
 Preoperation 0.286 0.574 0.410 ± 0.083
 Postoperation 0.282 0.645 0.405 ± 0.102
A1 time (msec) −0.328 ± 0.467 0.007
 Preoperation 6.982 8.643 7.525 ± 0.475
 Postoperation 7.289 8.938 7.853 ± 0.509
A2 time (msec) −0.387 ± 0.408 0.001
 Preoperation 20.450 21.826 21.138 ± 0.353
 Postoperation 20.767 21.885 21.526 ± 0.291
A1 velocity (m/sec) −0.002 ± 0.021 0.661
 Preoperation 0.094 0.143 0.116 ± 0.014
 Postoperation 0.094 0.156 0.118 ± 0.015
A2 velocity (m/sec) −0.013 ± 0.034 0.124
 Preoperation −0.325 −0.191 −0.255 ± 0.032
 Postoperation −0.301 −0.167 −0.243 ± 0.034
A1 deflection length (mm) −0.011 ± 0.182 0.791
 Preoperation 1.912 2.954 2.312 ± 0.244
 Postoperation 1.943 2.566 2.287 ± 0.148
A2 deflection length (mm) 0.112 ± 0.497 0.351
 Preoperation 1.870 3.897 2.786 ± 0.598
 Postoperation 2.151 3.473 2.667 ± 0.416
A1 deflection amplitude (mm) 0.096 ± 0.421 0.335
 Preoperation 0.071 0.117 0.092 ± 0.011
 Postoperation −1.719 0.105 −0.004 ± 0.415
A2 deflection amplitude (mm) 0.273 ± 1.165 0.321
 Preoperation 0.079 0.160 0.115 ± 0.017
 Postoperation −4.965 0.141 −0.157 ± 1.164
A1 deflection area (mm2) 0.004 ± 0.026 0.549
 Preoperation 0.125 0.291 0.191 ± 0.036
 Postoperation 0.134 0.227 0.187 ± 0.025
A2 deflection area (mm2) 0.011 ± 0.092 0.621
 Preoperation 0.155 0.392 0.265 ± 0.056
 Postoperation 0.180 0.579 0.255 ± 0.085
A1 delta arc length (mm) 0.000 ± 0.006 0.788
 Preoperation −0.025 −0.009 −0.017 ± 0.004
 Postoperation −0.043 −0.008 −0.017 ± 0.007
A2 delta arc length (mm) 0.003 ± 0.017 0.527
 Preoperation −0.034 −0.008 −0.023 ± 0.008
 Postoperation −0.088 −0.015 −0.025 ± 0.016

A1 = first applanation; A2 = second applanation; SD = standard deviation.

* Paired samples test.

Table 2
Comparison of the HC length, amplitude, area, and time parameters before and 4 months after surgery
Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean ± SD Mean difference ± SD p-value*
HC delta arc length (mm) −0.012 ± 0.020 0.021
 Preoperation −0.194 −0.127 −0.156 ± 0.019
 Postoperation −0.172 −0.103 −0.144 ± 0.017
HC deformation amplitude (mm) 0.001 ± 0.066 0.943
 Preoperation 0.787 1.099 0.987 ± 0.080
 Postoperation 0.771 1.095 0.986 ± 0.079
HC deflection length (mm) 0.131 ± 0.273 0.058
 Preoperation 5.923 7.006 6.390 ± 0.319
 Postoperation 5.796 6.610 6.236 ± 0.271
HC deflection amplitude (mm) 0.399 ± 1.678 0.314
 Preoperation 0.678 1.010 0.847 ± 0.075
 Postoperation −6.464 0.961 0.448 ± 1.676
HC deflection area (mm2) 0.233 ± 0.517 0.065
 Preoperation 2.301 3.938 3.083 ± 0.384
 Postoperation 1.549 3.559 2.850 ± 0.526
HC time (msec) −0.389 ± 0.505 0.004
 Preoperation 15.477 17.556 16.413 ± 0.490
 Postoperation 16.203 17.530 16.802 ± 0.316

HC = highest concavity; SD = standard deviation.

* Paired samples test.

Table 3
Comparison of the peak distance, maximum deformation and deflection amplitude, maximum delta arc length, and maximum inverse radius parameters before and 4 months after surgery
Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean ± SD Mean difference ± SD p-value*
Peak distance (mm) 0.115 ± 0.347 0.165
 Preoperation 4.522 5.348 4.955 ± 0.226
 Postoperation 3.580 5.279 4.839 ± 0.377
Maximum deformation amplitude (mm) 0.001 ± 0.066 0.943
 Preoperation 0.787 1.099 0.987 ± 0.080
 Postoperation 0.771 1.095 0.986 ± 0.079
Maximum deflection amplitude (mm) −2.460 ± 10.793 0.334
 Preoperation 0.684 1.013 0.863 ± 0.075
 Postoperation 0.650 47.891 3.323 ± 10.793
Maximum deflection amplitude (msec) −0.173 ± 0.978 0.450
 Preoperation 15.035 16.679 15.683 ± 0.413
 Postoperation 13.363 16.698 15.856 ± 0.737
Maximum delta arc length (mm) 0.114 ± 0.547 0.375
 Preoperation −0.202 −0.135 −0.170 ± 0.020
 Postoperation −2.544 −0.129 −0.284 ± 0.547
Maximum inverse radius (mm) 0 ± 0.020 0.927
 Preoperation 0.102 0.167 0.139 ± 0.016
 Postoperation 0.100 0.164 0.139 ± 0.019

SD = standard deviation.

* Paired samples test.

Table 4
Comparison of IOP, pachymetry, and other biomechanics indexes before and 4 months after surgery
Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean ± SD Mean difference ± SD p-value*
IOP (mmHg) −2.184 ± 3.228 0.009
 Preoperation 15.000 26.000 18.342 ± 3.184
 Postoperation 16.500 28.000 20.526 ± 3.510
bIOP (mmHg) −2.042 ± 2.915 0.007
 Preoperation 14.000 23.600 17.905 ± 2.398
 Postoperation 17.000 25.900 19.947 ± 2.514
Pachymetry (μm) 0.895 ± 12.801 0.764
 Preoperation 460.000 595.000 523.105 ± 41.943
 Postoperation 456.000 601.000 522.211 ± 38.682
Pachy slope (μm) 0.239 ± 5.823 0.860
 Preoperation 21.802 86.558 45.164 ± 13.591
 Postoperation 22.067 94.754 44.924 ± 15.332
Maximum whole eye movement (mm) −0.367 ± 1.664 0.350
 Preoperation 0.167 0.483 0.306 ± 0.083
 Postoperation 0.168 7.558 0.672 ± 1.669
Maximum whole eye movement (msec) −0.210 ± 1.224 0.465
 Preoperation 20.808 23.289 21.944 ± 0.715
 Postoperation 18.676 23.211 22.154 ± 1.048
Maximum DA ratio (2 mm) 0.040 ± 0.482 0.724
 Preoperation 2.858 4.351 3.876 ± 0.370
 Postoperation 3.205 4.615 3.836 ± 0.324
Maximum DA ratio (1 mm) 0.018 ± 0.056 0.179
 Preoperation 1.433 1.758 1.569 ± 0.074
 Postoperation 1.397 1.629 1.551 ± 0.057
Ambrosio relational thickness 3.583 ± 98.426 0.879
 Preoperation 199.292 860.603 510.258 ± 141.399
 Postoperation 192.611 868.890 510.469 ± 176.019
Integrated radius (mm) −0.066 ± 0.734 0.699
 Preoperation 3.781 7.236 5.925 ± 0.867
 Postoperation 3.740 7.253 5.991 ± 0.998
Stiffness parameter A1 −6.814 ± 13.792 0.051
 Preoperation 92.249 162.152 123.249 ± 18.111
 Postoperation 100.216 181.422 130.492 ± 19.253
Corvis Biomechanical Index 0.070 ± 0.151 0.075
 Preoperation 0.014 0.846 0.292 ± 0.245
 Postoperation 0.001 0.638 0.213 ± 0.187
Stress-strain index 0.138 ± 0.259 0.037
 Preoperation 0.995 1.662 1.339 ± 0.205
 Postoperation 0.657 1.476 1.185 ± 0.219

IOP = intraocular pressure; SD = standard deviation; bIOP = biomechanical-compensated intraocular pressure; DA = deformation amplitude; A1 = first applanation.

* Paired samples test.



ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
#1001, Jeokseon Hyundai BD
130, Sajik-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03170, Korea
Tel: +82-2-2271-6788    Fax: +82-2-2277-5194    E-mail: kos@ijpnc.com                

Copyright © 2025 by Korean Ophthalmological Society.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next