ReviewCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2020
Review of Orbital Fractures in an Urban Level I Trauma Center.
Review in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced Manufacturing of PLA Surgical Templates for Orbital Floor Geometry: Optimizing Fidelity and Surface Morphology via Variable Layer Height MEX 3D Printing.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Reproducible 3D Classification of Orbital Morphology Derived from CBCT and FBCT Segmentation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Orbital Destruction Intensity Classification-An Easy-to-Use, Numerical Scale for Assessing the Severity of Orbital Fractures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The better surgical timing and approach for orbital fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a comprehensive review and analysis of surgically treated orbital fractures. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort chart review study for surgically treated orbital fractures during 5 years.
resultsA total of 173 patients (average age 41.6 years) were diagnosed with orbital fractures. Most were male with a ratio of 3.3:1. Most fractures were caused by assault (39.3%); 22.5% of the cases were bilateral. The left orbit (40.5%) was fractured more than the right. The orbital floor (97.1%) was the most common anatomic location and the maxilla (65.3%) was the most commonly involved bone. The average time from trauma to surgical intervention was 8.7 ± 14.6 days and the average time from surgical intervention to discharge was 5.1 ± 9.0 days. The transconjunctival incision (63%) was the most commonly used incision, and nonresorbable implant (92.7%) was the most commonly used implant. Finally, the length of stay for the repair of a simple orbital fracture was less than for complex orbital fracture (1.5 days and 5.9 days, respectively).
conclusionUnderstanding the patterns and mechanisms of injury associated with orbital fractures can assist in developing standardized treatment protocols across all surgical specialties. This would ultimately allow for a uniform high quality of surgical care for patients with maxillofacial fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.