The better surgical timing and approach for orbital fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A large number of empirical studies on the surgical timing and approach of orbital fracture have been published, but which surgical timing and approach is better is still a dispute. We use a systematic review and meta-analysis to solve this problem. Methods: We performed a systematic search in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant literature. The search terms included those concerning or describing orbital fracture, timing, and approach, which are based on population, intervention, control, outcome, and study (PICOS) framework. The statistical software packages RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0 were used for data analysis. We sought to evaluate postoperative complications, and results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, funnel plots, Egger's test, and risk bias analysis were also performed on the included articles by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Results: A total of 7 trials involving 1,283 patients compared the surgical timing of ≤14 days versus >14 days, and another 14 trials involving 1,768 patients compared the surgical strategy of transconjunctival approach (TCA) with that of subciliary approach (SCA) for orbital fracture. The quality of all articles was higher than 7 points, which means all articles were at low risk of bias. Surgery conducted within 14 days significantly reduced the incidence of diplopia (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.83, P=0.005) and enophthalmos (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.83, P=0.02); TCA had a significantly lower incidence of ectropion (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.38, P<0.00001), scleral show (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.38, P<0.00001), and visible scar (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.65, P=0.33) compared to SCA, but had a significantly higher incidence of entropion (OR: 5.41, 95% CI: 1.83 to 15.96, P=0.002). There was no significant publication bias among our included studies. Conclusions: The operation in ≤14 days is better than that in >14 days. However, regarding the choice of surgical approach, TCA and SCA have their advantages and disadvantages, the exploration of which requires further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".