Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Lateral tarsal strip procedure: comparison of absorbable sutures and non-absorbable polypropylene suture. Does the suture type matter?

Eye volume 38, pages 752–756 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background/Objectives

To determine whether the success and complication rates of the Lateral Tarsal Strip (LTS) Procedure, when treating involutional ectropion/entropion, is influenced by the use of suture when attaching the tarsal strip to the periosteum.

Subjects/Methods

Multi-centre retrospective comparative study of re-operation and complication rates (Recurrence, Dehiscence, Suture Infection, Granuloma, Haemorrhage, Residual-Lid Laxity, Suture Extrusion and Repeat Procedure) in LTS, between 01/01/2017 and 01/01/2022 who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, for involutional ectropion/entropion using an absorbable polyglactin (vicryl) and non-absorbable polypropylene suture (prolene).

Results

1079 operations in 891 patients (36% female, average age 81.4 years) were performed with an average follow-up of 1.785 years. 588 operations in 475 patients were performed using prolene whilst 491 procedures in 416 patients were performed using vicryl sutures. Of these, 61% were performed by a consultant surgeon in the prolene group compared to 49.7% in the vicryl group. Overall complication rates between prolene and vicryl were 24.7% and 29.7% (p = 0.061) respectively. Higher complication rates for post-operative residual lid laxity, granuloma and suture infection were greater in the vicryl group versus prolene (2.65% and 0.51% p = 0.004, 2.24% and 0.68% p = 0.03, 1.83% and 0.17% p = 0.007 respectively). Non-significant results for dehiscence or repeat procedures (2.24% and 2.21% p = 0.974, 6.72% and 9.01% p = 0.166 respectively).

Conclusions

Both sutures are effective for the correction of involutional ectropion/entropion with LTS. Dehiscence and redo rates were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the use of vicryl suture was found to be associated with a higher complication rate for: post-operative residual lid laxity, granuloma and suture infection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Complication rates of vicryl compared to prolene suture when performing LTS.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data available, on reasonable request, by contacting the corresponding author.

References

  1. Mcveigh KA, Harrison R, Ford R. Entropion and ectropion repair: a snapshot of surgical practice in the United Kingdom. Orbit. 2018;37:105–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vallabhanath P, Carter S. Ectropion and entropion. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2000;11:345–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Altieri M. The advantages of lateral tarsal strip procedure. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2010;2:63.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hsuan J, Selva D. The use of a polyglactin suture in the lateral tarsal strip procedure. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:588–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weber PJ, Popp JC, Wulc AE. Refinements of the Tarsal Strip Procedure. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 1991;22:687–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu D. Lower eyelid tightening: a comparative study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;13:199–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vahdani K, Ford R, Garrott H, Thaller VT. Lateral tarsal strip versus Bick’s procedure in correction of eyelid malposition. Eye. 2018;32:1117–22.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leibovitch I. Lateral wedge resection: a simple technique for repairing involutional lower eyelid entropion. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36:1412–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mahesh L, Kumar VR, Jain A, Shukla S, Aragoneses JM, Martínez González JM, et al. Bacterial adherence around sutures of different material at grafted site: a microbiological analysis. Materials. 2019;12:2848. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12182848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Olver JM. Surgical tips on the lateral tarsal strip. Eye. 1998;12:1007–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Manasseh GSL, Hunt SV, Garrott H, Ford RL, Caesar R, Harrad RA. Anterior approach ptosis surgery: comparison of absorbable polyglactin sutures and non-absorbable polyester sutures. Does Vicryl stand the test of time? Orbit. 2022;41:547–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson ER, Maamari RN, Neimkin MG, Bodnar ZM, Holds JB. Comparison of non-absorbable silk and absorbable polyglactin sutures for external ptosis repair. Orbit. 2020;39:18–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Clauss KD, Ohana O, Patel A, Wester ST, Lee B, Alabiad CR, et al. Lateral tarsal strip complications with and without conjunctiva stripping. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022;38:458–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen L, Penne RB. Complications associated with polydek sutures used in the eyelid lateral tarsal strip procedures. Clin Med Res. 2022;20:107–10.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Setzen G, Williams E. Tissue response to suture materials implanted subcutaneously in a rabbit model. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1788–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Erel E, Pleasance PI, Ahmed O, Hart NB. Absorbable versus non-absorbable suture in carpal tunnel decompression. J Hand Surg. 2001;26:157–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lock AM, Gao R, Naot D, Coleman B, Cornish J, Musson DS. Induction of immune gene expression and inflammatory mediator release by commonly used surgical suture materials: an experimental in vitro study. Patient Saf Surg. 2017;11:16.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sala Pérez S, López Ramírez M, Quinteros Borgarello M, Valmaseda Castellón E, Gay Escoda C. Antibacterial suture vs silk for the surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. A randomized clinical study. Med Oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal. 2016;21:e95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Masini BD, Stinner DJ, Waterman SM, Wenke JC. Bacterial adherence to suture materials. J Surg Educ. 2011;68:101–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Ophthalmology departments at both trusts for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Southend University Hospital, Southend, UK

    Malik Moledina, Ananth Ranji, Chimwemwe Chipeta & Adeela Malik

  2. Ophthalmology Unit, Cheltenham General Hospital, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK

    Ibrar Ahmed & Richard Caesar

Authors
  1. Malik Moledina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ibrar Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ananth Ranji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chimwemwe Chipeta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard Caesar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adeela Malik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adeela Malik.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moledina, M., Ahmed, I., Ranji, A. et al. Lateral tarsal strip procedure: comparison of absorbable sutures and non-absorbable polypropylene suture. Does the suture type matter?. Eye 38, 752–756 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02768-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02768-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links