Re: 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(4):165-165
Publication date (electronic) : 2022 October 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.14730/aaps.2022.00612
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
Correspondence: Dong Gil Han Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, 33 Duryugongwonro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu 42472, Korea Tel: +82-53-650-4474, Fax: +82-53-650-4584, E-mail: dghan1001@cu.ac.kr
Received 2022 August 9; Accepted 2022 August 10.

We would like to express our appreciation of Dr. Kun Hwang for his thoughtful comments and kind discussion about the different vertical and horizontal ratios of the human cornea [1].

From the frontal view of the eye, it is known that the horizontal distance of the cornea appears slightly wider than the vertical distance. This is because the top and bottom of the anterior cornea are slightly overlapped by the sclera. The resulting difference between the horizontal and vertical diameters of the cornea is about 10%, according to relevant references.

Thus, if the measurement was based on a vertical standard, as the commenter pointed out, it would be necessary to adjust the values accordingly; however, in this study, the values were measured based on the horizontal diameter. Nonetheless, in Figure 1, the drawings of the corneal diameter as the reference point were incorrectly marked with vertical distances.

Fig. 1.

Schematic drawings of palpebral fissure height (PFH), exposed eyeball area (EEA), and the differences between the parameters. (A) Measured values in inborn double eyelids. (B) Measured values in operated double eyelids.

I am very sorry about this error, and I will pay careful attention to prevent this mistake from happening again. I would appreciate it if Dr. Kun Hwang could refer to the author’s previous paper, which involved measurements of the horizontal diameter of the cornea and was used as a reference in the present study (Fig. 1) [2,3].

Notes

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. Hwang K. 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”. Arch Aesthetic Plast Surg 2022;28:111.
2. Jung HB, Han DG, Shim JS, et al. Comparison of eye measurements between young Korean women with inborn double eyelids and those with single eyelids. Arch Aesthetic Plast Surg 2020;26:7–11.
3. Yeo SH, Han DG. Measurement of the exposed eyeball area and vertical dimension of palpebral fissure after double eyelidplasty. Arch Aesthetic Plast Surg 2017;23:24–9.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1.

Schematic drawings of palpebral fissure height (PFH), exposed eyeball area (EEA), and the differences between the parameters. (A) Measured values in inborn double eyelids. (B) Measured values in operated double eyelids.