Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsRetrospective StudyPubMed

Letter in reply to Letter to the Editor: Fat injection as a valuable tool for lower eyelid retraction management: a retrospective, observational, single blind, case-control study.

Pascali M., Marchese G., Diaspro A.

Retrospective Study on Scar, published in Aesthetic Plast Surg (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Retrospective Study
Journal
Aesthetic Plast Surg (2023)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
—
Source database
PubMed
PMID
36820860
DOI
10.1007/s00266-023-03276-4

Abstract (original English)

We have read Dr Riccardo Fondrini and Colleagues commentary on our paper, and we are grateful for their remarks. We herewith would clarify the critical points mentioned about fat reabsorption and survival, along with the risk of periorbital chronic oedema as per the recorded outcomes in the presented case series. Lastly, we have unfortunately to disagree with the commentary's point related to recommended injection depth as it is mandatory to point out that in our experience the superficial injection of nano-fat is a crucial step for lower eyelid retraction management, otherwise a retraction may persist due to the untreated scar in the anterior lamella, thus missing the therapeutic goal that we aim to achieve. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
HumansBlepharoplastyCase-Control StudiesEyelid DiseasesEyelidsRetrospective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodObservational Studies as Topic

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research