Table 1.
Results of the Systematic Literature Review
| Reference | Year | Study Site | No. Subjects | Study Design | Comparison | Application | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laurence et al17 | 1987 | USA | 12 | RCT | Electrocautery versus CO2 laser | Blepharoplasty | CO2 laser has more thermal damage, no significant difference in scar width |
| Cameron et al18 | 2008 | USA | 12 | RCT | Electrocautery versus CO2 laser | Blepharoplasty | No statistically differences between scar outcome |
| Julio et al19 | 2014 | Spain | 80 | Cross sectional | Electrocautery versus scalpel | Blepharoplasty, lateral tarsal strip, dacryocystorhinostomy | No statistically differences between scar outcome |
| Yonga et al20 | 2016 | Turkey, Italy, USA | 254 | RCT | Electrocautery versus scalpel | Blepharoplasty | No significant difference in ecchymosis and scar |
| Jordan et al21 | 2021 | USA | — | Descriptive | Electrocautery versus scalpel, laser | Blepharoplasty | No necrosis or separation of keratinocytes from basement membrane, less ecchymosis |
| This study | 2021 | Thailand | 25 | RCT (interindividual) | Electrocautery versus scalpel | Blepharoplasty, blepharoplasty with levator advancement | No significant difference in ecchymosis and scar |