TY - JOUR
T1 - Management of infraorbital rim and orbital floor fractures
T2 - A comparison of subciliary and infraorbital approaches
AU - Aleem, Mohammed Ahtesam
AU - Nasyam, Fazil Arshad
AU - Parameshwar Reddy, K. R.
AU - Karpe, Tanveer
AU - Singh, Tejpal
AU - Shailaja, Achunala Bhavani
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Journal of International Oral Health
PY - 2017/3/1
Y1 - 2017/3/1
N2 - Background: Selection of approach to treat orbital fractures involves multiple factors such as visibility and esthetics. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare subciliary and infraorbital incisions for orbital floor and infraorbital rim fractures. Materials and Methods: We carried our study in twenty patients, who reported to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery with orbital floor and infraorbital rim fractures. The patients were divided into two groups (Group A - subciliary incision and Group B - infraorbital incision), with ten patients in each group. We compared infraorbital and subciliary incisions to approach the infraorbital rim and orbital floor in orbital fractures using criteria such as exposure time, esthetics, and complications. Results: All the analysis was done using SPSS version 14. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We found that infraorbital incision took shortest time for exposing fractured site, caused more edema after 1 month of procedure, and lead to more visible scarring when compared to subciliary incision. Conclusion: We recommend subciliary incision to approach the infraorbital rim and orbital floor fractures.
AB - Background: Selection of approach to treat orbital fractures involves multiple factors such as visibility and esthetics. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare subciliary and infraorbital incisions for orbital floor and infraorbital rim fractures. Materials and Methods: We carried our study in twenty patients, who reported to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery with orbital floor and infraorbital rim fractures. The patients were divided into two groups (Group A - subciliary incision and Group B - infraorbital incision), with ten patients in each group. We compared infraorbital and subciliary incisions to approach the infraorbital rim and orbital floor in orbital fractures using criteria such as exposure time, esthetics, and complications. Results: All the analysis was done using SPSS version 14. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. We found that infraorbital incision took shortest time for exposing fractured site, caused more edema after 1 month of procedure, and lead to more visible scarring when compared to subciliary incision. Conclusion: We recommend subciliary incision to approach the infraorbital rim and orbital floor fractures.
KW - Edema
KW - Infraorbital
KW - Orbital floor
KW - Scar
KW - Subciliary
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054814268&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4103/jioh.jioh_26_17
DO - 10.4103/jioh.jioh_26_17
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85054814268
SN - 0976-7428
VL - 9
SP - 65
EP - 70
JO - Journal of International Oral Health
JF - Journal of International Oral Health
IS - 2
ER -