4.5 Article

A nonsurgical approach with repeated orthoptic evaluation is justified for most blow-out fractures

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 560-568

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.03.005

关键词

Orbital fracture; Orbital reconstruction; Conservative approach; Nonsurgical; Orthoptic evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study presents the results of an updated clinical protocol for orbital blow-out fractures, with a special emphasis on nonsurgical treatment and orthoptic evaluation of functional improvement. Methods: A two-centre multidisciplinary prospective cohort study was designed to monitor the results of a clinical protocol by assessing ductions, diplopia, globe position, and fracture size. Patients underwent clinical assessment and orthoptic evaluation at first presentation and then at 2 weeks and 3/6/12 months after nonsurgical or surgical treatment. Outcome parameters were field of binocular single vision (BSV), ductions, degree of enophthalmos, a diplopia quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaire, and other sequelae or surgical complications. Results: 46 of the 58 patients who completed the 3, 6 and/or 12-month follow-up received nonsurgical treatment. There was full recovery without diplopia or enophthalmos (>2 mm) in 45 of the 58 patients. The other 13 patients had limited diplopia, mainly in extreme upward gaze (average BSV 90). Five of those 13 patients did not experience impairment of diplopia in daily life. The average QoL score at the end of follow-up was 97. No patients developed late enophthalmos. Conclusion: This study showed that a high percentage of patients with orbital floor and/or medial wall fracture recovered spontaneously without lasting diplopia or cosmetically disfiguring enophthalmos. The conservative treatment protocol assessed here underlines the importance of orthoptic evaluation of functional parameters. (C) 2020 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据