Long-Term Aesthetic Cicatrization Analysis of Lower Eyelid Incision for Orbital Floor Fracture Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orbital fractures are among the most frequent facial injuries. Of the 3 most widely described approaches in the literature, the lower eyelid approach is the authors' preference. This study retrospectively analyzed the patients treated at the Trauma Center of the Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome from January 2010 to December 2020. Inclusion criteria were as follows: diagnosis of pure/impure orbital bone fracture, complete clinical and radiological documentation, and a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Sex, age, etiology, treatment, and associated complications were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics. Two internationally validated scales were used for the functional and esthetic long-term evaluation: the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) and the Vancouver one. The scales were compiled by the patient himself and by 3 independent expert observers. Of the 543 patients who underwent surgery in the specified period, 208 fully met the inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-two (68.2%) were males and 66 (31.8%) were females, with a mean age of 40.68 years. The main cause was represented by assaults (33.1%). One hundred seventy-nine patients had a pure orbital fracture (83.8%) and 29 an impure one (16.2%). The most frequent symptoms at the time of diagnosis were diplopia (31.2%), followed by anesthesia of the second trigeminal branch (24.3%). Open reduction with internal fixation was the preferred treatment and proved to be effective in reducing the main signs and symptoms of the fracture in a statistically significant way ( P < 0.05). Long-term esthetic results of the lower eyelid, using the Vancouver and POSASs, were respectively as follows: Vancouver Scar Scale mean total score was 2.41 (range: 0-8), observer POSAS mean total score was 1.83 (range: 1.2-3.9), observer general opinion mean score was 1.66, patient POSAS mean total score was 2.23 (range: 1.33-3.7), and patient general opinion mean score was 2.87. The lower eyelid approach has proven to be reproducible, with a fast-learning curve and a low complication rate. The analysis conducted highlighted an excellent long-term esthetic-functional result. Further studies will be needed to statistically compare the results obtained with other orbital floor surgical approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".