ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Radiographic Indications for Orbital Blowout Fracture Reconstruction: A Critical Review of 2 Decades of Literature.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Orbital Defect Size Reflects Structural Displacement but Not Ocular Motor Dysfunction: A Cohort Study of 1084 Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical criteria (eg, persistent diplopia, enophthalmos) are clear indications for surgery in orbital blowout fractures (OB-OFs). A variety of additional radiographic indications are often described (eg, fracture size, orbital volume changes, inferior rectus muscle [IRM] rounding and displacement) but their significance varies across studies. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reliability of these radiographic criteria. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a PubMed search (2000-2024) was conducted to assess studies analyzing radiographic indications for surgery in OB-OFs. We included only studies where surgery was based exclusively on clinical grounds with radiographic correlation established retrospectively, or cohorts followed up conservatively until the development of symptoms. Identified studies were assessed for aim, design, methods, bias, radiographic criteria, surgery, and study outcomes. Results: Out of 683 articles, only 6 were eligible. Fracture size was found to be weakly predictive of symptoms or the need for surgery, with variable cutoff values (≥42%, >2.3 cm Conclusions: Clinical criteria remain the most reliable indications for OB-OF reconstruction. Caudal IRM displacement was consistently predictive of symptomatic fractures. Until a consensus is reached on a consistent methodology to calculate volume and fracture area, the reported cutoff values may be insufficient to guide treatment independently.
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.