Safety and Complications in Lower Eyelid Blepharoplasty: A Systematic Review
Gimenez AR., Rohrich R., Borab Z., Fisher S., Fagien S., Rohrich RJ.
Systematic Review, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- 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
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
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40995580
- PMCID
- PMC12456572
- DOI
- 10.1097/gox.0000000000007102
- Citations
- 1
Abstract (original English)
Background Lower blepharoplasty is one of the most commonly performed aesthetic procedures in the United States. Although lower blepharoplasty techniques have evolved significantly, it remains a considerable surgical challenge, associated with many aesthetic and functional complications. This review aimed to elucidate the safety and complication profiles of lower blepharoplasty. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies that report the complication profiles of lower blepharoplasty techniques. Results A total of 36 articles meeting inclusion criteria and critically evaluating lower blepharoplasty and its associated complications were analyzed and discussed. Conclusions This review reports the overall safety and low complication profile associated with lower blepharoplasty. No major complications resulting in ocular and visual disturbances are reported, and the majority of complications resulting in functional and aesthetic concerns can be resolved with conservative management or revisionary surgery. More rigorous studies are needed to more critically assess and compare the various surgical techniques.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.