Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of lower eyelid approaches in the treatment of orbital fractures.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35954/SM2014.33.1.2Keywords:
Conjunctiva; Oral Surgical Procedures; Eye InjuriesAbstract
Different approaches have been described for the treatment of fractures involving the infraorbital floor and rim: subciliary, subtarsal, infraorbital and transconjunctival. The aim of the present article is to compare the esthetic and functional postoperative results obtained with each one of them.
In this work a review of the literature was carried out with the intention of discussing and clarifying some points where there is still controversy regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches. For this purpose, we compared surgical exposure, scar perception, difficulty to perform it, scleral and/or ectropion appearance, post surgical edema and entropion. The complications of the lower eyelid that determine poor aesthetic and functional results can be seen with any of the approaches. Most of the authors included in this search found better results with the subtarsal approach. The subtarsal approach has been the most successful in balancing the advantages and disadvantages.
Received for review: June 2014.
Accepted for publication: August 2014.
Contact e-mail: veroggiro@gmail.com
Downloads
References
(1) Larrabee W. Párpados, órbita anterior y sistema lacrimal. En: Larrabee W, Makielski K, Henderson J, editores. Anatomía quirúrgica de la cara. 2a. ed. Bogotá: Amolca, 2006. p. 128-146
(2) Cantini JE. Manejo de las fracturas de la órbita. En: Coiffman F. Cirugía plástica reconstructiva y estética. Tomo III. Cirugía bucal, maxilar y cráneo-orbitofacial. 3a. ed. Bogotá: Amolca, 2007. p. 2401-2426.
(3) Pedraza R, Salej S. Fracturas orbitarias. En: Coiffman F. Cirugía plástica reconstructiva y estética. Tomo III. Cirugía bucal, maxilar y cráneo-orbitofacial. 3a. ed. Bogotá :Amolca, 2007. p. 2427-2440.
(4) McCarthy J, Jelks G, Valauri A, Wood-Smith D. La órbita y el malar. En: McCarthy J. Cirugía Plástica: la cara. Buenos Aires: Médica Panamericana, 1994. p.686-781.
(5) Rouviere H, Delmas A. Anatomía Humana, descriptiva, topográfica y funcional. v. 1 Cabeza y cuello. 11a. ed. Barcelona: Elsevier; Masson, 2005. 653 p.
(6) Ellis E, Zide M. Abordajes quirúrgicos del macizo facial. 2a. ed. Caracas: Amolca, 2008. 252 p.
(7) Converse J. Two plastic operations for repair of orbit following severe trauma and extensive comminuted fracture. Arch Ophthalmol 1944; 31(4):323-325.
(8) Manson P, Ruas E, Iliff N, Yaremchuk M. Single eyelid incision for exposure of the zygomatic bone and orbital reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1987; 79(1):118-126.
(9) Rohrich R, Janis J, Adams W. Subciliary versus subtarsal approaches to orbitozygomatic fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111(5):1708-1713.
(10) Converse J. A randomized comparison of four incisions for orbital fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 67(6):736-37.
(11) Murphy M, Bradrick J. Technique for fixation of the frost suture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 53(11):1360-1361.
(12) Appling W, Patrinely J, Salzer T. Transconjuntival approach vs subciliary skin-muscle flap approach for orbital fracture repair. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993; 119(9):1000-7.
(13) Patel P, Sobota B, Patel N, Greene J, Millman B. Comparison of transconjunctival versus subciliary approach for orbital fractures: a review of 60 cases. J Cranio Maxillofacial Trauma 1998; 4(1):17.
(14) Bähr W, Bagambisa F, Schlegel G, Schilli W. Comparison of transcutaneous incisions used for exposure of the infraorbital rim and orbital floor. A retrospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 90(4):585-591.
(15) Wilson S, Ellis E. Surgical approaches to the infraorbital rim and orbital floor. The case for the subtarsal approach. Part one. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64(1):104-107.
(16) Kushner G. Surgical approaches to the infraorbital rim and orbital floor: the case for the transconjunctival approach. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64(1):108-110.
(17) Jacono A, Moskowitz B. Transconjunctival vs transcutaneous approach in upper and lower blepharoplasty. Facial Plas Surg 2001; 17(1):21-28.
(18) Wray R, Holtmann B, Ribaudo M, et.al. A comparison of conjunctival and subciliary incisions for orbital fractures. Br J Plast Surg 1977; 30(2):142-145.
(19) Ridgway E, Chen C, Lee B. The incidence of lower eyelid malposition after facial fracture repair: a retrospective study and meta-analysis comparing subtarsal, subciliary, and transconjunctival incisions. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009;124(5):1578-1586.
(20) Rohrich R, Janis J, Adams W. Subciliary vs subtarsal approaches to orbitozygomatic fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111(5):1708-1714.
(21) Baumann A, Ewers R. Use of the preseptal transconjunctival approach in orbit reconstruction surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59(3): 287-291.
(22) Bourguet J. Les herniesgraisseuses de l’orbite: notretraitement chirurgical. Bullacad med ( París) 1924; 92(3):1027-32.
(23) Tessier P. The conjuntival approach to the orbital floor and maxilla in congenital malformation and trauma. J Maxillofac Surg 1973; 1:3-8.
(24) Converse J, Firmin F, Wood-Smith D. The conjunctival approach in orbital fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1973; 52(6):656-657.
(25) Kelley P, Crawford M, Higuera, Hollier. Two hundred ninety-four consecutive facial fractures in an urban trauma center. Lessons learned. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005; 116(3):42e-49e.
(26) Westfall CT, Shore JW, Nunery WR, Hawes MJ, Yaremchuk MJ. Operative complications of the transconjunctival inferior fornix approach. Ophthalmology 1991; 98(10):1525-1528.
(27) Mullins J, Holds J, Branham G, Thomas J. Complications of the transconjunctival approach. A review of 400 cases. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 123(4):385-388.
(28) Suga H, Sugawara Y, Uda H, Kobayashi N. The transconjunctival approach for orbital bony surgery; in which cases should it be used? J Craniofac Surg 2004; 15(3):454-457.
(29) Holtmann B, Wray RC, Little A. A randomized comparison of four incisions for orbital fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 1981; 67(6):731-737.
(30) Heckler F, Songcharoen S, Sultani F. Subciliary incisión and skin muscle eyelid flap for orbital fractures. Ann Plast Surg 1983; 10(4):309-313.
(31) Pospisil OA. Review of the lower blepharoplasty incision as a surgical approach to zygomnatic - orbital fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1984; 22(4):261-268.
(32) Lacy M, Pospisil O. Lower blepharoplasty post orbicularis approach to the orbit: A prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1987; 25(5):398-401.
(33) Antonyshyn O, Gruss J, Galbraith D, Hurwitz J. Complex orbital fractures: A critical analysis of immediate bone graft reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 1989; 22(3):220-235.
(34) Lorenz P, Longaker M, Kawamoto H. Primary and secondary orbit surgery, the transconjunctival approach. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103(4): 1124-1128.
(35) Zingg M, Chowdhury K, Lädrach K, Vuillemin T, Sutter F, Raveh J. Treatment of 813 zygoma - lateral orbital complex fractures: new aspects. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991; 117(6):611-620.
(36) Habal M, Chaset R. Infraciliary transconjunctival approach to the orbital floor for correction of traumatic lesions. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1974; 139(3): 420-422.
(37) Eppley B, Custer P, Sadove M. Cutaneous Approaches to the Orbital Skeleton and Periorbital Sturctures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990; 48(8):842-854.
(38) Feldman E, Bruner T, Sharabi S, Kosby J, Holler L. The subtarsal incision: where should it be palced? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69(9):2419-2423.
(39) Netschaçer D, Patrinely J, Peltier M, et al. Tansconjunctival vs transcutaneous lower eyelid blepharoplasty: A prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96(5):1053-6.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Until 2024 we use the Creative Commons Attribution/NonCommercial Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.es. Which states that: you are free to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, as well as to adapt, remix, transform and build upon the material. Under the following terms:
Attribution: you must give proper credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes have been made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in such a way as to suggest that you or your use is endorsed by the licensor.
NonCommercial: you may not use the material for commercial purposes.
As of 2025 authors retain their copyright and assign to the journal the right of first publication of their work, which shall simultaneously be subject to the license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es that permits sharing, copying and redistribution of the material in any medium or format provided that initial publication in this journal is indicated. Adapt, remix, transform and build upon the material. If you remix, transform, or build from the material, you must distribute your contribution under the same license as the original and may not make use of the material for commercial purposes.
Under the following terms:
1. Attribution: you must give proper credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate whether changes have been made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in such a way as to suggest that you or your use is endorsed by the licensor.
2. NonCommercial: you may not use the material for commercial purposes.
3. ShareAlike: if you remix, transform or build upon the material, you must distribute your contribution under the same license as the original.
PlumX Metrics
