Comments on “Usefulness of the eyeball exposure area as an eye measurement modality through a comparison between eyes with inborn double eyelids and operated double eyelids”

Article information

Arch Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2022;28(3):111-111
Publication date (electronic) : 2022 July 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.14730/aaps.2022.00507
Department of Plastic Surgery, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
Correspondence: Kun Hwang Department of Plastic Surgery, Inha University College of Medicine, 27 Inhang-ro, Jung-gu, Incheon 22332, Korea Tel: +82-32-890-3514, Fax: +82-32-890-2918, E-mail: jokerhg@inha.ac.kr

This study was supported by a grant from National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020R1I1A2054761).

Received 2022 May 26; Accepted 2022 June 7.

These comments refer to a paper recently published in Archives of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (Kim et al. Usefulness of the eyeball exposure area as an eye measurement modality through a comparison between eyes with inborn double eyelids and operated double eyelids) [1]. I read this paper with interest because it provides anthropometric data on young Korean women.

The authors measured 92 eyes with natural double eyelids and 76 eyes with only double eyelidplasty, and compared these groups through measurements of the exposed eyeball area and palpebral fissure height. These values were adjusted to a percentage value, and the authors performed measurements and corrected their findings to match the average corneal diameter (11.3 mm) of Korean women previously reported by Bae et al. [2].

As shown in Fig. 1, the author used this mean value (11.3 mm) as the “vertical corneal diameter” [1]. However, this value is not the mean value of the “vertical corneal diameter,” because Bae et al. [2] measured only the “horizontal corneal diameter.” The human cornea is not a perfect circle. According to Wolff’s Anatomy, the mean vertical corneal diameter (10.6 mm) is shorter than the mean horizontal corneal diameter (11.75 mm) [3]. Therefore, the results of the authors’ values should be corrected according to the vertical/horizontal ratio of the human cornea.

Notes

Kun Hwang is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

References

1. Kim SH, Han DG, Park JH. Usefulness of the eyeball exposure area as an eye measurement modality through a comparison between eyes with inborn double eyelids and operated double eyelids. Arch Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022;28:49–52.
2. Bae TH, Kim JC, Kim WS, et al. A photogrammetic study of the eyes in Korean youths. J Korean Soc Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;34:37–43.
3. Bron AJ, Tripathi RC, Tripathi BJ. Wolff’s anatomy of the eye and orbit. In : Bron AJ, Tripathi RC, Tripathi BJ, eds. The eyeball and its dimensions 8th edth ed. London: Hodder Education Publishers; 1997. p. 217.

Article information Continued