Transconjunctival versus subciliary approach to the infraorbital margin for open reduction of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a randomized feasibility study

Abstract

Introduction Although some studies addressed the differences between subciliary and transconjunctival approaches, no previous prospective comparative study on displaced zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fracture that repaired by three-point internal fixation using also upper gingivolabial incision and upper eye lid incision. So, the effect of these incisions on the comparison was not investigated. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare transconjunctival and subciliary approaches for open reduction and internal rigid fixation (OR/IF) of ZMC fractures. Methods This prospective study was carried out on 40 patients had displaced ZMC fractures repaired by OR/IF. Patients were randomly assigned into two equal groups (20 patients for each); subciliary group subjected to subciliary approach and transconjunctival group subjected to transconjunctival approach for inferior orbital rim repair. In both groups, frontozygomatic and zygomaticomaxillary buttresses were also approached by lateral eye brow and superior gingivolabial incision, respectively. Primary outcome measures include accessibility (need for lateral canthotomy), the exposure duration, postoperative pain, early postoperative edema, and operative complications. Secondary outcome measures include dental occlusion, average intrinsic vertical mouth opening, post subciliary scar assessment, late postoperative complication, and opthalmological assessment concerning ectropion, entropion, scleral show, and eye globe affection (enophthalmos or diplopia). Results The mean duration from incisions to fracture exposure was 13.7 ± 2.17 min in subciliary approach and 14.6 ± 2.31 min in transconjunctival approach with nonsignificant difference (p = 0.1284). Lateral canthotomy was required for proper exposure of the fracture and OR/IF using transconjunctival approach while not needed with subciliary approach. Ectropion and scleral show occurred in 10 and 15% respectively in subciliary group and were not encountered in transconjunctival group. Although postoperative periorbital edema was significantly more sever in transconjunctival group within the first postoperative week (p = 0.028), no persistent periorbital edema was reported. Infection, hematoma, and globe complication were not detected in any patient. All authors characterized all scars of the subciliary group as unnoticeable. Conclusion Transconjunctival approach mostly needs lateral canthotomy that was not needed with subciliary approach. Transient postoperative edema is more in transconjunctival approach while postoperative ectropion and sclera show was detected only with subciliary approach. So, building up of experience in transconjunctival approach will be beneficial for maxillofacial surgeons and more measures to avoid ectropion are needed with subciliary approach.