Transconjunctival and Subciliary Approach in the Treatment of Orbital Fractures: A Study on Oculoplastic Complication

(1) Background: The aim of the present study was to compare lower eyelid post-operative complications, such as ectropion, entropion, and scleral show of orbital floor fractures, associated to the subciliary vs transconjunctival approaches. (2) Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparative study of patients who underwent surgery for orbital fractures by means of a transconjunctival or a subciliary approach at the Clinic of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery of the University of Verona from January 2013 through September 2018 was designed. Data related to the trauma and to surgical procedures were retrieved, as well as a series of anthropometric parameters extrapolated from standardized photographs. Statistical analysis was performed on the outcomes. (3) Results: 33 patients underwent surgery by means of a transconjunctival approach and 36 patients by means of a subciliary approach. Ectropion was observed to a greater extent in the subciliary group, however the difference resulted to be not statistically significant. Patients in which osteosynthesis devices were used presented with a greater incidence of scleral show with respect to the remaining patients. No statistically significant difference was observed for any of the parameters taken into account. (4) Conclusions: Since the two approaches does not seem to be associated with remarkable differences in terms of outcomes, the choice of technique should be tailored to the patient’s features and the surgeon’s experience.

Risk of Lower Eyelids Malposition in Subciliary Compared to Transconjunctival Approach in Maxillofacial Fractures Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Both subciliary and transconjunctival approaches have been used for decades to visualise the site of the maxillofacial fracture. The most common complication following those procedures is lower eyelids malposition. AIM: This meta-analysis will analyse which approach (subciliary and transconjunctival approaches) is more favourable to decrease lower eyelids malposition incidence. METHOD: This meta-analysis was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines. The electronic search was conducted using keywords (“Lower Eyelids Malposition” OR “Complications” OR “Ectropion” OR “Entropion”) AND (Transconjunctival) AND (Subciliary) AND (Maxillofacial Fractures) in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ). This review included full-text studies (observational and randomised controlled trials) in English comparing subciliary and transconjunctival approach in patients with maxillofacial fractures in the last 10 years. The data collected were the type of fractures and approaches, ectropion and entropion incidence as well as follow-up duration. The risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Statistical analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane, Denmark). RESULT: This study included 3 cohort studies and 2 Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) studies from 2012 to 2017 with a total of 574 samples. Subciliary approach had a significant higher ectropion incidence when compared to transconjunctival approach (RR = 4.64, 95% CI: 1.68-12.81, p = 0.003). There was also a significant reduction of entropion incidence in patients with subciliary approach compared to transconjunctival approach (RR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04 – 0.69, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: There was no superiority between one procedure toward another since each procedure related to different lower eyelids malpositions.

Combined endoscopic endonasal and subciliary approach in revision DCR cases

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Study conducted to know surgical outcome of combined endoscopic endonasal and subciliary approach in revision DCR cases and complications associated with the procedure.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Prospective, single-blinded, randomized, interventional study is carried out in Tertiary level center from August 2009 to April 2016. Totally 18 patients (11 female and 7 male) were involved in the study who has undergone previous DCR (11 external DCR and 7 endoscopic DCR). The results were analyzed at end of the 3^rd and 6^th month both subjectively and objectively. </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> All the 18 patients who underwent combined approach were relived from epiphora. None of the patients developed any complications following surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The combination of endoscopic and external approach gives benefits of the both approaches giving huge advantages in revision cases. It gives excellent visualization of the surgical field, ability to correct internal nasal pathologies, make clear rhinostoma, workprecisely on fibrosed lacrimal sac and nearly no external scar. It provides good team work opportunity between otorhinologist and ophthalmologist.</p>