Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 7, 2026
Coronoid-Temporalis Pedicled Flap for Orbital Floor Defect Reconstruction
Published on: December 5, 2025
Achieving Natural Aesthetics in Lower-Lid Pretarsal Rolls Reconstruction: A Personalized Approach Based on Eye Shape
Gang Su1,2, Yongxiang Teng1,2, Haifeng Yao1
1School of Clinical Medicine, Shandong Second Medical University, 4948 Shengli East District, Weifang, 261053, China.
Background:
Despite progress in eye rejuvenation research, there is limited study on the aesthetics of the lower-lid pretarsal rolls. This study aims to explore the distribution and aesthetic relationship between different lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and eye shapes, offering guidance for personalized lower-lid pretarsal rolls reconstruction in clinical practice.
Methods:
A total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.
Results:
The distribution of lower-lid pretarsal rolls types was as follows: parallel (28.99%), linear (9.56%), crescent (18.55%), and fishtail (42.91%). For eye types, Phoenix eyes accounted for 31.90%, Almond eyes 31.95%, Elongated eyes 16.57%, Sagging eyes 14.44%, and Hanging eyes 5.14%. Among eye types, Phoenix eyes preferred the parallel type (3.60 ± 0.98), while fishtail scored lowest (3.23 ± 1.13). Hanging eyes favored the linear type (3.53 ± 1.20), while fishtail had the lowest score (2.93 ± 0.99). Crescent types were preferred for Elongated eyes (3.46 ± 1.10), while linear types scored the lowest (2.60 ± 1.26). Parallel types were preferred for Sagging eyes (3.58 ± 1.08), and fishtail types scored the lowest (2.53 ± 1.03). Almond eyes had relatively high scores for all lower-lid pretarsal rolls types.
Conclusion:
A total of 1,925 patients were observed and classified for statistical analysis, defining four lower-lid pretarsal rolls types and five common eye shapes. Additionally, 140 participants rated the aesthetic appeal of five sets of modified eye images.
No Level Assigned:
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .
