The KS-Pexy: A Novel Method to Manage Horizontal Lower Eyelid Laxity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with horizontal lower lid laxity undergoing lower lid blepharoplasty are at a high risk for lid malposition. Prophylactic correction of horizontal lower lid laxity during blepharoplasty may alleviate this risk. In this article, the authors describe a novel lower lid blepharoplasty technique, the KS-pexy (named after its originators, Kuhnt and Szymanowski), for correcting horizontal lower lid laxity. METHODS: All cases of KS-pexy between September of 2009 and June of 2018 from an aesthetic practice were reviewed retrospectively. All patients were diagnosed with horizontal lower lid laxity and requested lower lid blepharoplasty for aesthetic concerns. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, procedure details, and intraoperative findings were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent KS-pexy performed by the senior author. The average follow-up was 41.1 months, ranging from 2 to 107 months. Thirteen patients had a negative vector, 54 patients received a KS-pexy in combination with another facial procedure, and 14 patients had their KS-pexy as a secondary procedure. The overall success rate was 96.8 percent. The complication profile was as follows: chemosis (27.4 percent), new-onset dry eyes persisting longer than 8 weeks (6.5 percent), temporary lower eyelid malposition (4.8 percent), lower eyelid malposition requiring surgical intervention (3.2 percent), poor scar quality (1.6 percent), lower lid abscess (1.6 percent), transient conjunctivitis (1.6 percent), lateral fat compartment swelling (1.6 percent), canthopexy dehiscence (1.6 percent), hordeolum (1.6 percent), and temporary V2 paresthesia (1.6 percent). CONCLUSION: The KS-pexy is an effective means to treat horizontal eyelid laxity prophylactically in patients requesting lower eyelid blepharoplasty for aesthetic reasons. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".