Archives of craniofacial surgery · 2018
Retrospective analysis of 79 patients with orbital floor fracture: outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Senese Olivier, Boutremans Edward, Gossiaux Caroline, Loeb Isabelle, Dequanter Didier
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of our retrospective study is to evaluate the management of isolated orbital floor fractures considering the clinical, functional and aesthetic results according to the surgical approach and the type of materials used.
METHODS: Retrospectively, clinical, radiological, surgical, and ophthalmological data from 79 patients were collected from January 2010 to December 2016. Furthermore, included patients were interrogated on functional and aesthetic satisfaction.
RESULTS: The main causes of trauma were physical aggression followed by accidents. The median time between trauma and surgery was 4 days. The most common surgical approaches were the subciliary and the transconjunctival ones. Alloplastic materials were used in 75 patients. In two patients, we used a combination of two grafts. Patients experienced minor immediate complications. On follow-ups, none of our patients suffered from ocular movement restrictions. Patients treated by subciliary approach had higher risk of retractile scaring compared to other surgical approaches. In our study, patients agreed to complete a questionnaire assessing functional and aesthetic outcomes with a high satisfaction score. No association between the implant material used and the results has been assessed.
CONCLUSION: This study describes the results of orbital floor reconstructions. Despite a variety of materials used and surgical approaches performed, we believe that the transconjunctival approach is the most suitable option with a high satisfaction score.
METHODS: Retrospectively, clinical, radiological, surgical, and ophthalmological data from 79 patients were collected from January 2010 to December 2016. Furthermore, included patients were interrogated on functional and aesthetic satisfaction.
RESULTS: The main causes of trauma were physical aggression followed by accidents. The median time between trauma and surgery was 4 days. The most common surgical approaches were the subciliary and the transconjunctival ones. Alloplastic materials were used in 75 patients. In two patients, we used a combination of two grafts. Patients experienced minor immediate complications. On follow-ups, none of our patients suffered from ocular movement restrictions. Patients treated by subciliary approach had higher risk of retractile scaring compared to other surgical approaches. In our study, patients agreed to complete a questionnaire assessing functional and aesthetic outcomes with a high satisfaction score. No association between the implant material used and the results has been assessed.
CONCLUSION: This study describes the results of orbital floor reconstructions. Despite a variety of materials used and surgical approaches performed, we believe that the transconjunctival approach is the most suitable option with a high satisfaction score.