TY - JOUR
T1 - A Comparative Analytical Study of Functional and Esthetic Outcomes of Infraorbital and Subciliary Incisions to Assess the Redundancy of the Infraorbital Approach
AU - Prince, Jefferson
AU - Shetty, Premalatha
AU - Ramanathan, Arvind
AU - N, Srikant
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2025 Jefferson Prince et al. The Scientific World Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Objectives: Multiple surgical approaches exist to access the infraorbital region to treat fractures. As with facial approaches, the onus is on good esthetics at the end of the procedure. Access is either through transcutaneous or transconjunctival approaches. In this study, we compared two transcutaneous approaches, the infraorbital and subciliary approaches, to assess functional and esthetic outcomes. Materials and Methods: This was a comparative analytical study of 22 patients over 18 months with zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures, indicated for open reduction and fixation of infraorbital margin. Patients were randomized into subciliary and infraorbital groups, assessed for intraoperative parameters of time, accessibility, and technique sensitivity and evaluated for postoperative esthetic outcomes of edema, scarring, and any complications such as denting ectropion or scleral show at the end of 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Results: The intraoperative time was three times greater in the subciliary incision group. The accessibility to the fracture site is excellent in the infraorbital approach, although it was also adequate in the subciliary approach. Regarding the esthetic outcomes, denting, scleral show, and ectropion parameters were observed more in the initial postoperative period in the subciliary group and more scar visibility for the same period in the infraorbital group. However, no significant esthetic differences were present between the two approaches at the end of 6 months. Conclusions: The infraorbital approach has low esthetic and functional complications of scleral show and ectropion with relatively good esthetics and ease of performing for infraorbital and orbital floor fractures.
AB - Objectives: Multiple surgical approaches exist to access the infraorbital region to treat fractures. As with facial approaches, the onus is on good esthetics at the end of the procedure. Access is either through transcutaneous or transconjunctival approaches. In this study, we compared two transcutaneous approaches, the infraorbital and subciliary approaches, to assess functional and esthetic outcomes. Materials and Methods: This was a comparative analytical study of 22 patients over 18 months with zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures, indicated for open reduction and fixation of infraorbital margin. Patients were randomized into subciliary and infraorbital groups, assessed for intraoperative parameters of time, accessibility, and technique sensitivity and evaluated for postoperative esthetic outcomes of edema, scarring, and any complications such as denting ectropion or scleral show at the end of 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Results: The intraoperative time was three times greater in the subciliary incision group. The accessibility to the fracture site is excellent in the infraorbital approach, although it was also adequate in the subciliary approach. Regarding the esthetic outcomes, denting, scleral show, and ectropion parameters were observed more in the initial postoperative period in the subciliary group and more scar visibility for the same period in the infraorbital group. However, no significant esthetic differences were present between the two approaches at the end of 6 months. Conclusions: The infraorbital approach has low esthetic and functional complications of scleral show and ectropion with relatively good esthetics and ease of performing for infraorbital and orbital floor fractures.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85218970542
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85218970542#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1155/tswj/9595176
DO - 10.1155/tswj/9595176
M3 - Article
C2 - 39963652
AN - SCOPUS:85218970542
SN - 2356-6140
VL - 2025
SP - 9595176
JO - TheScientificWorldJournal
JF - TheScientificWorldJournal
IS - 1
M1 - 9595176
ER -