ReviewAnnals of maxillofacial surgery
Comparison of Transconjunctival versus Subtarsal Approach in Orbital Reconstruction with Respect to Post-Operative Complications and Aesthetic Outcome - A Systematic Review.
Review 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.
- Article
- A framework for optimizing postoperative scars: A Therapist's perspective.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2025Article
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: Limited evidence exists regarding the optimal surgical approach for orbital floor reconstruction, resulting in uncertainty regarding the choice of approach with the best aesthetic outcomes and lowest post-operative complications. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to compare the transconjunctival and subtarsal approaches (STA) in orbital reconstruction in terms of post-operative complications and aesthetic outcomes. Data Sources: The systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2021. Study Eligibility Criteria: Eligible studies included clinical studies comparing the transconjunctival and STA approaches in orbital reconstruction. The outcome variables assessed were aesthetic scar, hyperaesthesia, entropion, ectropion, enophthalmos, epiphora and other complications. A total of 346 articles were initially identified, and after evaluation using Mendeley software, 292 articles were reviewed. Finally, five articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in this systematic review. Study Appraisal and Results: The transconjunctival approach demonstrated superior aesthetic outcomes compared to the STA approach. However, the STA approach had a lower incidence of post-operative complications, including hyperaesthesia, entropion, ectropion, enophthalmos and epiphora. Limitations: The main limitation of this systematic review is the limited availability of literature directly comparing these two approaches, which precluded the inclusion of randomised controlled trials. Furthermore, the search strategy was restricted to specific databases, namely PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Collaboration Library.
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.