ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2020
The Utility of Postoperative Computed Tomography Imaging Following Isolated Orbital Blowout Fracture Repair.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of fracture type with enophthalmos and intraorbital volume correction in orbital fractures: A computed tomographic study.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The Association of Same-Day CT Scan with Postoperative Outcomes in Isolated Orbital Fracture Repair.Facial plastic surgery : FPS · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the clinical utility of computed tomography (CT) imaging following isolated orbital blowout fracture (OBF) repair.
methodsSingle-center retrospective review of adult patients undergoing surgical repair of isolated OBFs between November 2008 and August 2016 who received postoperative CT scans. Preoperative and postoperative examination data, postoperative imaging reads, postoperative courses, and any reoperation documentation were collected from electronic medical records. Postoperative imaging findings were categorized as major, indeterminate, or minor by predicted impact on clinical management. Major findings indicated a need for reoperation, indeterminate a potential reoperation, and minor no reoperation.
resultsFifty-two cases met inclusion criteria: 94.2% (n = 49) of postoperative scans included minor findings, 34.6% (n = 18) indeterminate findings, and 19.2% (n = 10) major findings. Three patients returned to the operating room (OR) for surgical revision. All 3 had a significant and concerning change on postoperative examination. Only 1 also had a major finding on postoperative imaging. The remaining 49 patients had benign postoperative examinations, despite 9 (17.3%) with major imaging findings who did not undergo reoperation.
conclusionsIn the majority of OBF repairs, postoperative CT scan findings were not predictive of a need to return to the OR for revision. Reoperation was instead largely prompted by concerning changes in the postoperative clinical examination. Our findings suggest that postoperative imaging in the absence of clinical concern should not be included in the surgical management of isolated OBFs. Instead, targeted imaging will help reduce radiation exposure and health-care costs without sacrificing patient care.
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.