Good visibility is a challenge when fixing large orbital fractures. In particular,
placing large implants in a controlled manner without using wide approaches may require
compromises. Three different incisions - subciliary, subtarsal, and transconjunctival
- have traditionally been used for exploration of the orbital floor,
1
but they can cause different complications, they have their own impairment profiles,
and some are more demanding and time consuming than others.
1
,
2
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Incisions for orbital floor exploration.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012; 23: 1985-1989
- Subtarsal versus transconjunctival approach — esthetic and functional long-term experience.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 74: 2230-2238
- Orbital wall reconstruction with two-piece puzzle 3D printed implants: technical note.Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2016; 9: 55-61
- Patient-specific puzzle implant preformed with 3D-printed rapid prototype model for combined orbital floor and medial wall fracture.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018; 71: 496-503
- Primary reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific titanium milled implants: the Helsinki protocol.Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 56: 791-796
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 30, 2019
Accepted:
August 16,
2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
