The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
A scoping review of modifications of the transconjunctival approach for maxillofacial fracture management and proposal of evidence-based algorithm for incision selection
Abstract
Background The transconjunctival (TC) approach is widely utilized for orbital fracture repair due to its superior cosmetic outcomes compared to cutaneous incisions. However, concerns about limited surgical exposure, prolonged operative times, and lower eyelid complications have prompted several modifications of this technique. Purpose This scoping review aimed to systematically map and analyze the various modifications of the transconjunctival (TC) approach used for orbital and adjacent midface (infraorbital rim and zygomaticomaxillary complex) fracture repair, focusing on technical descriptions, clinical outcomes, and complications. Study selection A systematic search of electronic databases was performed following PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify studies reporting modifications of the TC approach. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical studies, retrospective analyses, and case reports or series that described surgical techniques and reported outcomes. Studies describing TC approach modifications for orbital, infraorbital rim, or zygomatic fractures were included. Studies without specific details on modifications or outcomes were excluded. Of the initially identified articles, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria after independent screening by two reviewers. Results Twenty-two studies describing TC approach modifications were included, describing eight major categories of TC modifications. Reported variations included lateral paracanthal extensions, sutureless TC incisions, cutaneous Y-modifications, extended TC approaches, stair-step incisions, modified lateral canthotomy and aesthetic variations, lateral skin extensions and canthal-sparing techniques. These techniques were designed to improve surgical access and minimise complications such as ectropion, entropion, and scleral show. Some modifications prioritized enhanced exposure, while others focused on reducing morbidity and optimizing aesthetic results. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcome measures, quantitative synthesis was not performed. Conclusions and relevance The TC approach continues to evolve through multiple technical refinements that balance exposure and aesthetics. Awareness of these variants enables surgeons to individualise incision choices based on fracture patterns and risk profiles. The current evidence is largely descriptive and lacks standardised outcome measures, which limits direct comparisons. Prospective, well-designed studies are needed to establish the optimal modification for specific clinical contexts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- Rosenstein, 2000, Anatomy of the lateral canthal tendon, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 89, 24, 10.1016/S1079-2104(00)80009-8 · DOI
- Gioia, 1987, The anatomy of the lateral canthal tendon, Arch Ophthalmol, 105, 529, 10.1001/archopht.1987.01060040099042 · DOI
- Al-Moraissi, 2017, Subciliary vs. transconjunctival approach for the management of orbital floor and periorbital fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg, 45, 1647, 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.07.004 · DOI
- Wilson, 2006, Surgical approaches to the infraorbital rim and orbital floor: the case for the subtarsal approach, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 64, 104, 10.1016/j.joms.2005.09.018 · DOI
- Patel, 1998, Comparison of transconjunctival versus subciliary approaches for orbital fractures: a review of 60 cases, J Craniomaxillofac Trauma, 4, 17
- Ridgway, 2009, Acquired entropion associated with the transconjunctival incision for facial fracture management, J Craniofacial Surg, 20, 1412, 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181aee3ee · DOI
- Kushner, 2006, Surgical approaches to the infraorbital rim and orbital floor: the case for the transconjunctival approach, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 64, 108, 10.1016/j.joms.2005.09.019 · DOI
- Jacono, 2001, Transconjunctival versus transcutaneous approach in upper and lower blepharoplasty, Facial Plast Surg, 17, 21, 10.1055/s-2001-16366 · DOI
- Raschke, 2013, Transconjunctival versus subciliary approach for orbital fracture repair–an anthropometric evaluation of 221 cases, Clin Oral Investig, 17, 933, 10.1007/s00784-012-0776-3 · DOI
- Kesselring, 2016, Lower eyelid malposition following orbital fracture surgery: a retrospective analysis based on 198 surgeries, Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr, 9, 109, 10.1055/s-0035-1567813 · DOI
- Kaur, 2025, Postoperative complications in preseptal versus retroseptal transconjunctival approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg, 10.1016/j.jormas.2025.102495 · DOI
- Giraddi, 2012, Preseptal transconjunctival vs. subciliary approach in treatment of infraorbital rim and floor fractures, Ann Maxillofac Surg, 2, 136, 10.4103/2231-0746.101338 · DOI
- Riyadh, 2019, Pros and cons of the transconjunctival retroseptal approach to the isolated orbital floor fracture, J Craniofac Surg, 30, e527, 10.1097/SCS.0000000000005463 · DOI
- Tricco, 2018, PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation, Ann Intern Med, 169, 467, 10.7326/M18-0850 · DOI · Paper page
- de Chalain, 1994, Modification of the transconjunctival lower lid approach to the orbital floor: lateral paracanthal incision, Plast Reconstr Surg, 94, 877, 10.1097/00006534-199411000-00023 · DOI
- Song, 2014, Modified transconjunctival lower lid approach for orbital fractures in East Asian patients: the lateral paracanthal incision revisited, Plast Reconstr Surg, 134, 1023, 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000639 · DOI
- Chung J.H., You H.J., Hwang N.H., Kim D.W., Yoon E.S. Transconjuctival incision with lateral paracanthal extension for corrective osteotomy of malunioned zygoma. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2016 Sept;17(3):119–27. · DOI
- Ho, 2004, Sutureless transconjunctival repair of orbital blowout fractures, Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg, 20, 458, 10.1097/01.IOP.0000143715.26518.4C · DOI
- Lane, 2009, Sutureless’ repair of orbital floor and rim fractures, Ophthalmology, 116, 135, 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.08.042 · DOI
- Vaibhav, 2016, Comparison of ‘sutureless’ Transconjunctival and subciliary approach for treatment of infraorbital rim fractures: a clinical study, J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 15, 355, 10.1007/s12663-015-0835-9 · DOI
- Suh, 2016, Analysis of extended transconjunctival approach with lateral paracanthal incision: a study among classical methods of orbital approach and new method, J Craniofac Surg, 27, 2050, 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003100 · DOI
- Kim, 2009, Versatile use of extended transconjunctival approach for orbital reconstruction, Ann Plast Surg, 62, 374, 10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181855d27 · DOI
- Ishida, 2016, Evolution of the surgical approach to the orbitozygomatic fracture: from a subciliary to a transconjunctival and to a novel extended transconjunctival approach without skin incisions, J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 69, 497, 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.016 · DOI
- Uemura, 2001, C-shape extended transconjunctival approach for the exposure and osteotomy of traumatic orbitozygomaticomaxillary deformities, J Craniofac Surg, 12, 603, 10.1097/00001665-200111000-00020 · DOI · Paper page
- Martinez, 2012, Y modification of the transconjunctival approach for management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a technical note, J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 70, 97, 10.1016/j.joms.2011.05.009 · DOI
- Rajkumar, 2016, Y’ Modification of the transconjunctival approach for management of zygomatic complex fractures: a prospective analysis, J Maxillofac Oral Surg, 15, 45, 10.1007/s12663-015-0781-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Ramyadevi, 2016, Single incision technique for two-point fixation of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures, J Pierre Fauchard Acad (India Sect), 30, 71, 10.1016/j.jpfa.2016.11.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Yassin, 2022, Evaluation of the Y-shaped modification of the transconjuctival approach in open reduction of zygomatic maxillary complex fracture (CLINICAL TRIAL), Alex Dent J
- Dhupar, 2024, Y’ Modification of the cutaneous incision of the preseptal transconjunctival approach for the management of zygomatico-maxillary complex fractures: a prospective clinical study, J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg, 125
- Bonawitz, 2016, Modified transconjunctival approach to the lower eyelid: technical details for predictable results, Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr, 9, 29, 10.1055/s-0035-1556051 · DOI
- Soliman, 2023, Lateral canthotomy revisited: a refined surgical approach for orbital access, Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open, 11, e5014, 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005014 · DOI
- Shinohara, 2022, Transconjunctival surgical access with modified aesthetic lateral canthotomy, J Craniofacial Surg, 33, e16, 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007856 · DOI
- Bernardini, 2017, The revised Direct transconjunctival approach to the orbital floor, Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg, 33, 93, 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000659 · DOI
- Emam, 2016, Lateral tarsotomy: a practical alternative to lateral canthotomy to increase orbital access, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 122, 10.1016/j.oooo.2016.02.003 · DOI
- Garvey, 2024, Trans-tarsal stair-step technique for lateral extension of the transconjunctival incision: a technical note and case series, Eplasty, 24, e22
- Pérez, 2021, Transconjunctival approach using lateral skin extension for reconstruction of orbit zygomatic complex fractures: technique description and a case series analysis, Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr, 14, 246, 10.1177/1943387520970084 · DOI
- Ridgway, 2009, 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, 124, 1578, 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181babb3d · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaur, A., Ganesan, A., Sennimalai, K., & Kaur, K.
- Affiliations
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Vijaypur, Jammu (IN)
- Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (IN)
- All India Institute of Medical Sciences (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Kaur, Amanjot
- Venue
- Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-06
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 102670
- ISSN
- 2468-7855 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4416684137
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Facial Trauma and Fracture Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone fractures and treatments
- Keywords
- transconjunctival approach, orbital fracture repair, zygomatic fractures, incision selection, surgical technique modification, eyelid complications, ectropion, entropion, scleral show, canthotomy, cosmetic outcome
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Conjunctiva, Humans, Maxillary Fractures, Orbital Fractures, Zygomatic Fractures, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review