{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04906542056074766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03925233644859813, 'mean_word_length': 5.170028818443804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Fasanella-Servat and Small-Incision Techniques for Involutional Ptosis Repair

Purpose: To compare the results of the classic Fasanella-Servat internal approach to the newer, small-incision external approach in the repair of involutional ptosis. Methods: Retrospective review identified 93 patients (104 surgical procedures) at Northwestern Ophthalmology from June 2005 until October 2011 who underwent either the Fasanella-Servat or the small-incision approaches for involutional ptosis repair. Change in vertical palpebral fissure measurement, change in marginal reflex distance 1 (MRD1) measurement, patient satisfaction, surgical complications, operating time, and postoperative pain were compared between groups. Results: Of the 93 patients, most were female with an average age of 69 years. Of the procedures, 48% were small incision and 52% were Fasanella-Servat approaches. Average postoperative follow up was 34.0 days. Vertical palpebral fissure height increased an average of 3.36 mm (±1.15) in the Fasanella-Servat group and 2.74 mm (±1.18) in the small-incision group (p = 0.003). Preoperative vertical palpebral fissure height was lower in the Fasanella-Servat group, but postoperative vertical palpebral fissure height was similar between the 2 groups (p=0.3). MRD1 increased an average of 3.42 mm (±0.86) in the Fasanella-Servat group and 2.68 mm (±0.93) in the small-incision group (p < 0.01). Preoperative MRD1 was lower in the Fasanella-Servat group, but postoperative MRD1 was similar between the 2 groups (p = 0.15). Average operating time was 53 minutes (±16) in the small-incision group and 27 minutes (±6) in the Fasanella-Servat group (p < 0.01). There were no surgical complications in either group with equivalent patient satisfaction between the 2 groups. More patients reported postoperative pain in the Fasanella-Servat group (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Both the Fasanella-Servat and small-incision approaches lead to good surgical outcomes with equivalent patient satisfaction, although the Fasanella-Servat approach provides a shorter average operating time with satisfactory postoperative MRD1.