ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
The better surgical timing and approach for orbital fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Subciliary Closure in Orbital Fractures: A Comparison Between Cutaneous and Cutaneo-periosteal Sutures.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Comparison of Lower Eyelid Complications Among Surgical Approaches for Orbital and Zygomaticomaxillary Fractures: A Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Complications and Outcomes of Orbital Fracture Repair in Oman.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026Observational
- Advantages of the upper eyelid approach with lateral canthotomy in the resolution of complex fronto-orbito-zygomatic fractures: bibliographic review of conventional approaches and a case report.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2025Article
- Eyelid Complications in Subciliary Versus Transconjunctival Approaches to Orbital and Zygomaticofacial Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Assessing the Adequacy of Orbital Reconstruction With Titanium Mesh Using Clinical and Radiological Measures.Cureus · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A large number of empirical studies on the surgical timing and approach of orbital fracture have been published, but which surgical timing and approach is better is still a dispute. We use a systematic review and meta-analysis to solve this problem. Methods: We performed a systematic search in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant literature. The search terms included those concerning or describing orbital fracture, timing, and approach, which are based on population, intervention, control, outcome, and study (PICOS) framework. The statistical software packages RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0 were used for data analysis. We sought to evaluate postoperative complications, and results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, funnel plots, Egger's test, and risk bias analysis were also performed on the included articles by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Results: A total of 7 trials involving 1,283 patients compared the surgical timing of ≤14 days versus >14 days, and another 14 trials involving 1,768 patients compared the surgical strategy of transconjunctival approach (TCA) with that of subciliary approach (SCA) for orbital fracture. The quality of all articles was higher than 7 points, which means all articles were at low risk of bias. Surgery conducted within 14 days significantly reduced the incidence of diplopia (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.83, P=0.005) and enophthalmos (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.83, P=0.02); TCA had a significantly lower incidence of ectropion (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.38, P<0.00001), scleral show (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.38, P<0.00001), and visible scar (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.65, P=0.33) compared to SCA, but had a significantly higher incidence of entropion (OR: 5.41, 95% CI: 1.83 to 15.96, P=0.002). There was no significant publication bias among our included studies. Conclusions: The operation in ≤14 days is better than that in >14 days. However, regarding the choice of surgical approach, TCA and SCA have their advantages and disadvantages, the exploration of which requires further research.
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.