ReviewHNO2022
[Current developments in primary and secondary surgical treatment of midface and periorbital trauma].
Review in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the accuracy between guided and freehand placement of periorbital implants-a cadaveric split-face study.Head & face medicine · 2025Article
- [Trauma of the midface : Symptoms, diagnostics and treatment].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- The impact of polydioxanone (PDS) foil thickness on reconstruction of the orbital geometry after isolated orbital floor fractures.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2024Article
- Review
- Composite grafts made of polycaprolactone fiber mats and oil-based calcium phosphate cement pastes for the reconstruction of cranial and maxillofacial defects.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Two-Dimensional Post-Traumatic Measurements of Orbital Floor Blowout Fractures Underestimate Defect Sizes Compared to Three-Dimensional Approaches.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fractures of the periorbita and the midface are among the most common bony facial injuries. Aesthetic and functional reconstruction is a challenge in clinical routine. This article illustrates recent developments in the primary and secondary surgical treatment of midface and periorbital trauma. Resorbable patches and films increase the anatomic reconstructive capacity and enable treatment of extensive orbital fractures. Orbital fractures with involvement of supporting key structures are advantageously reconstructed using patient-specific implants (PSI), which are fabricated by computer-assisted manufacturing techniques and positioned by intraoperative navigation. If late complications such as bulbar malposition and enophthalmos have occurred after the initial procedure, they can be addressed by overcorrective restoration of orbital volume. The use of PSI for initial fracture restoration of the midface is not yet established but may be useful in re-osteotomies of misconsolidated fragments. Extensive midface defects with significant soft tissue involvement can be reconstructed using microvascular grafts. Consecutive reconstructive procedures may include orthognathic surgery and local flap reconstruction. In summary, the integration and advancement of computer-assisted techniques now offers individualized reconstruction procedures, which may be a viable alternative to conventional implants and compression miniplates. Future developments may focus on the search for innovative biomaterials, which can be integrated into computer-aided design and manufacturing processes.
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.