ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Subciliary Closure in Orbital Fractures: A Comparison Between Cutaneous and Cutaneo-periosteal Sutures.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The orbital floor is the most fragile region of the facial skeleton and is highly prone to fractures, making precise anatomical restoration essential to prevent complications. Among surgical approaches, the subciliary and transconjunctival techniques are most commonly used. Closure is typically performed in 2 layers: periosteum and skin. Methods: A prospective, experimental, longitudinal comparative study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in western Mexico between July and October 2024. A total of 100 patients with orbital floor fractures were randomly assigned into 2 groups. Group 1 underwent skin-only closure, whereas group 2 received combined periosteal and skin closure. Results: Outcomes evaluated included postoperative complications (eyelid retraction and ectropion) and the need for surgical reintervention on days 8, 15, and 30, along with demographic variables and comorbidities. The sample included 88 men (88%) and 12 women (12%), with a mean age of 34.8 ± 12.3 years. A significantly higher incidence of eyelid retraction was observed in the combined closure group during the first week (16% versus 2%; Conclusions: In conclusion, periosteal plus skin closure was associated with a higher incidence of eyelid retraction, without reducing ectropion or reintervention rates compared with skin-only closure.
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.