Orbital Subperiosteal Abscess Drainage: Transorbital vs. Endonasal Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of transorbital versus endonasal endoscopic approaches for orbital subperiosteal abscess drainage. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted at a single institution of patients who underwent orbital subperiosteal abscess drainage from November 2009 to April 2023. Results: Of 64 patients, 44 (68.8%) underwent abscess drainage via an orbital approach, while 20 (31.3%) underwent endonasal endoscopic drainage. No significant difference in operative time or visual acuity improvement was found between the two groups. Abscess drainage via orbitotomy was associated with a longer total (average 8.1 days) and postoperative (average 7.3 days) hospitalization time compared to the endoscopic group (average 5.4 days and 4.2 days, respectively), though this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.197, 0.136, respectively). For medial orbital abscesses, the average length of total and postoperative hospitalization was greater after orbitotomy (p = 0.028 and 0.019, respectively). At discharge, patients who underwent orbitotomy more commonly reported periorbital swelling (p = 0.0003), while postoperative pain was more common in the endoscopic drainage group (p = 0.009). Reoperation rate was higher after orbitotomy (34.1%) compared to the endoscopic drainage group (15.0%), though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.115). Conclusions: Transorbital and endoscopic surgical approaches for orbital abscess drainage have similar surgical outcomes, with no statistically significant differences noted in terms of visual acuity change or reoperation rate. Longer hospital stays were found for patients with medial orbital abscesses drained via orbitotomy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".