MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414259884 · doi:10.3390/jcm14186431

Eyelid Complications in Subciliary Versus Transconjunctival Approaches to Orbital and Zygomaticofacial Fractures: A Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414259884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu‐Yen Chen, Yun‐Ju Lai, Tai‐Yuan Chen, Yung‐Feng Yen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTaichung Veterans General Hospital
KeywordsEyelidComplicationCochrane LibraryEntropionEctropionOdds ratioMeta-analysisRelative risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Eyelid complications such as ectropion, entropion, scleral show, and visible scarring can lead to significant cosmetic and functional concerns following orbital and zygomaticofacial fracture repair. The subciliary and transconjunctival approaches are commonly used, but their relative complication risks remain debated. This study aimed to compare the risk of postoperative eyelid complications between these two approaches. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251089460). PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between 1 January 1990 and 15 June 2025. Data on study design, patient demographics, and complication rates were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for quality assessment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (v4.0), and pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Nineteen studies involving 2103 patients (1062 subciliary; 1041 transconjunctival) were included for analysis. The subciliary approach was associated with significantly higher risks of ectropion (OR = 2.94; 95% CI: 1.63–5.31), scleral show (OR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.12–4.84), and visible scar (OR = 5.62; 95% CI: 1.65–19.18). In contrast, the transconjunctival approach carried a higher risk of entropion (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.07–0.42). Between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were minimal. Conclusions: As compared with the transconjunctival approach, the subciliary incision is associated with higher risks of ectropion, scleral show, and scarring, whereas the transconjunctival approach carries a greater risk of entropion. These findings may help guide surgical decision-making and patient counseling regarding postoperative outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.063
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.648
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.116 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207