ArticleAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Multidisciplinary Management of an Orbitocranial Penetrating Injury by a Pencil in a Paediatric Patient - A Case Report.
Article in Annals of maxillofacial surgery. 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.
- A lateral suboccipital approach for hemostasis in removing transorbital, transcavernous penetrating chopsticks: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Non-Surgical Management and Partial Recovery of a 19-Year-Old with Low-Speed Transorbital Penetrating Brain Injury.The American journal of case reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale: Orbitocranial penetrating injuries can accidentally occur in children while handling pencils and can cause severe sequelae such as ocular damage, brain lesion, intracranial haemorrhage, and infections. Patient Concerns: We report the case of a 7-year-old child with an orbitocranial penetrating injury by a pencil, initially gone undetected, that caused a direct damage to the optic nerve. Diagnosis: Computed tomography scan with contrast detected the foreign body and the presence of a lesion of the left internal carotid artery. Treatment: Angiography was performed to treat the vascular lesion and to prevent haemorrhage. Subsequently, a craniotomy was performed to assist the extraction of the pencil from the entry wound and to remove residual fragments. Outcomes: Left eye vision was lost. The 1-year follow-up was uneventful. Take-away Lessons: Operative angiography is mandatory before the surgical extraction of the orbitocranial penetrating injury in case of documented intracranial vessel damage.
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.