Endoscopic Transnasal versus Transcaruncular Reconstruction in Isolated Medial Orbital Wall Fractures.
10.3341/jkos.2015.56.8.1154
- Author:
Ah Reum JEONG
1
;
Sung Mo KANG
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea. ksm0724@inha.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Endoscopic transnasal reconstruction;
Medial orbital wall fracture;
Transcaruncular reconstruction
- MeSH:
Diplopia;
Enophthalmos;
Humans;
Ophthalmology;
Orbit*
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2015;56(8):1154-1159
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare 2 surgical techniques, endoscopic transnasal reconstruction and transcaruncular reconstruction in isolated medial orbital wall fractures. METHODS: This study included 79 isolated medial orbital wall fracture patients from January 2011 to December 2012 of Department of Ophthalmology, Inha University Hospital. The authors compared computed tomographic scans, diplopia, extraocular muscle (EOM) movements, and Hertel's exophthalmometer exams pre- and post-surgery. Thirty-five patients received endoscopic transnasal reconstruction and 44 received transcaruncular reconstruction. RESULTS: The 2 surgical methods showed no significant differences in primary gaze diplopia (p = 0.50), restriction of EOM movements (p = 0.48), remaining enophthalmos of more than 2 mm (p = 0.99), and improvement in enophthalmos (p = 0.07) when compared 6 months after surgery. Statistically significant differences were observed in peripheral diplopia (p = 0.04) 6 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 surgical methods present similar effectiveness in postoperative primary gaze diplopia, EOM restriction, and enophthalmos. With respect to postoperative peripheral diplopia, endoscopic transnasal reconstruction method showed advantages. The surgical method should be selected by comparing advantages and disadvantages.
