CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Facial Trauma and Fracture ManagementReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesBone fractures and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: finding the least complicated surgical approach (A Randomized Clinical Trial)

Open access
Melek, Lydia N., Noureldin, Marwa G.·2023·BMC Oral Health
DOI 10.1186/s12903-023-03249-8PMC PMC10403894
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Many approaches have been suggested for management of zygomaticomaxillary fractures. Each approach has its own advantages and limitations. Aim of this study: The study is intended to compare between the subtarsal approach, conventional transconjuctival approach and the Y- modification of the transconjuctival approach in the management of zygomatico-maxillay complex fractures. Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients with age range of 20–50 years requiring open reduction and fixation of a fractured zygomatic complex were randomly divided into three equal groups. Group A: subtarsal approach group, group B: a conventional transconjunctival approach group and group C: Y- modification of the transconjunctival approach group. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters were evaluated. Results: As for the exposure time, group C had the longest duration. Easy access to the site of fracture was reached in all groups with no statistically significant difference. During the first 24 h, the pain was only statistically significant between groups A and B with higher pain level in group A. After the first week, pain was significantly higher in groups A and C, with respect to group B. The least edema was observed in group B after 24 h, one week and four weeks postoperatively. Regarding ocular complications, wound healing and sensory nerve function, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Scarring was only noticeable in group A patients. Conclusion: The transconjunctival approach provides adequate exposure with excellent esthetics and minor complications. The Y-modification also delivers an esthetic access with inconspicuous scar to the frontozygomatic region. Trial registration: The trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT05695872).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12903-023-03249-8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

1 retracted

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Sharara AA. Transconjunctival versus subtarsal approach in open reduction of zygomaticomaxillary fractures [Master]. Alexandria Univeristy Faculty of Dentistry; 2019.
  2. Kurita M, Okazaki M, Ozaki M, Tanaka Y, Tsuji N, Takushima A, et al. Patient satisfaction after open reduction and internal fixation of zygomatic bone fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(1):45–9. · DOI
  3. Melek LN, Sharara AA. Retrospective study of maxillofacial trauma in Alexandria University: Analysis of 177 cases. Tanta Dental J. 2016;13(1):28–33. · DOI
  4. Ji SY, Kim SS, Kim MH, Yang WS. Surgical Methods of Zygomaticomaxillary Complex Fracture. Arch Craniofac Surg. 2016;17(4):206–10. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Subramanian B, Krishnamurthy S, Suresh Kumar P, Saravanan B, Padhmanabhan M. Comparison of various approaches for exposure of infraorbital rim fractures of zygoma. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2009;8(2):99–102. · DOI
  6. Waheed El-Anwar M, Elsheikh E, Sweed AH, Ezzeldin NJO, Surgery M. Electromyography assessment in zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;19(4):375–9. · DOI
  7. Kumar R, Ali R, Zaidi SAA, Maheshwari B, Ahmed K. Subciliary and Subtarsal incision in management of zygomatico-orbital fracture, a study on scar assessment. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2022;16(05):624. · DOI
  8. Novelli G, Ferrari L, Sozzi D, Mazzoleni F, Bozzetti A. Transconjunctival approach in orbital traumatology: a review of 56 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2011;39(4):266–70. · DOI
  9. El-Anwar MW, Elsheikh E, Hussein AM, Tantawy AA, Abdelbaki YM. Transconjunctival versus subciliary approach to the infraorbital margin for open reduction of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a randomized feasibility study. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;21(2):187–92. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Martinez AY, Bradrick JP. Y modification of the transconjunctival approach for management of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a technical note. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(1):97–101. · DOI
  11. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2010;340c332:698–702.
  12. Yassin AM, Shaaban AM, Noureldin MG. Evaluation of the Y-shaped modification of the transconjuctival approach in open reduction of zygomatic maxillary complex fracture (clinical trial). Alex Dent J. 2022;47(1):9–15.
  13. Petrie A, Sabin C. Medical Statistics at a Glance. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2009.
  14. Shoukath S, Taylor GI, Mendelson BC, Corlett RJ, Shayan R, Tourani SS, et al. The lymphatic anatomy of the lower eyelid and conjunctiva and correlation with postoperative chemosis and edema. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(3):628e-e637. · DOI
  15. Johnson C. Measuring pain. Visual analog scale versus numeric pain scale: what is the difference? J Chiropr Med. 2005;4(1):43. · DOI
  16. Sanhoury MI, El Touny KA, Loutfi MA, Sobhy MA, Zaki MA. Comparison between percutaneous coronary intervention and medical treatment in the management of Egyptian patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Egypt J Crit Care Med. 2022;9(3):62–9.
  17. Kar IB, Mahavoi BR. Retrospective analysis of 503 maxillo-facial trauma cases in odisha during the period of dec’04-nov’09. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2012;11(2):177–81. · DOI
  18. Santosh BS, Giraddi G. Transconjunctival preseptal approach for orbital floor and infraorbital rim fracture. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011;10(4):301–5. · DOI
  19. Holtmann B, Wray RC, Little AG. A randomized comparison of four incisions for orbital fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1981;67:731–7. · DOI
  20. Rajkumar K, Mukhopadhyay P, Sinha R, Bandyopadhyay TK. “Y” Modification of the transconjunctival approach for management of zygomatic complex fractures: a prospective analysis. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2016;15(1):45–51. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ilankovan V, Hadley D, Moos K, el Attar A. A comparison of imaging techniques with surgical experience in orbital injuries. A prospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1991;19:348–52. · DOI
  22. Dickinson AJ, Gausas RE. Orbital lymphatics: do they exist? Eye (Lond). 2006;20:1145–8. · DOI
  23. Oztel M, Goh R, Hsu E. Subtarsal versus transconjunctival approach: a long-term follow-up of esthetic outcomes and complications. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79(6):1327.e1-1327.e6. · DOI
  24. Ridgway EB, Chen C, Lee BT. Acquired entropion associated with the transconjunctival incision for facial fracture management. J Craniofac Surg. 2009;20(5):1412–5. · DOI
  25. Wray RC Jr, Holtmann B, Ribaudo JM, Keiter J, Weeks PM. A comparison of conjunctival and subciliary incisions for orbital fractures. Br J Plast Surg. 1977;30(2):142–5. · DOI
  26. Devi RS. Comparison of y- modification of transconjunctival approach versus subtarsal – lateral eyebrow approach for zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: A Prospective study. M.Sc. Thesis. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery department, Tamilnadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai. 2015.

Metadata

Authors
Melek, L. N., & Noureldin, M. G.
Affiliations
Alexandria University (EG)
Corresponding author
Melek, Lydia N.
ORCID
Venue
BMC Oral Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-08-04
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
539-539
ISSN
1472-6831 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12903-023-03249-8
PMC
PMC10403894
OpenAlex
W4385578420
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 5
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Oral Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
Alexandria University
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
zygomatic fractures, transconjunctival approach, surgical approach comparison, open reduction and internal fixation, postoperative pain, postoperative swelling, ocular complications, facial aesthetics, sensory nerve function
MeSH terms
Adult, Fracture Fixation, Internal, Humans, Middle Aged, Pain, Zygomatic Fractures, Young Adult

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