| Literature DB >> 27489846 |
Seung-Hyun Rhee1, Tae-Seup Kim1, Jae-Min Song1, Sang-Hoon Shin1, Jae-Yeol Lee1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study assessed the association between eye symptoms (enophthalmos or diplopia) and site of damage, volume, deviated inferior rectus muscle (IRM) and type of fracture with computed tomography (CT). The intent is to anticipate the prognosis of orbital trauma at initial diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: Blow-out fractures; Computed tomography; Orbital injury; Volume measurement
Year: 2014 PMID: 27489846 PMCID: PMC4283543 DOI: 10.14402/jkamprs.2014.36.6.273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Maxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg ISSN: 2288-8101
Fig. 1.Schematic drawing of right orbit. The distances from the ethmoidomaxillary suture to the medial (X) and lateral boundary (Y) of the fracture and to the lateral border of the orbital floor (L) are shown. The area of displaced tissue (A) is shown as a lattice pattern.
Fig. 2.Coronal computed tomographic slices and schematics of left fractured orbits representing the muscular subscore. If the line is located just above the orbital floor, IR displacement is classified as Grade 1, the line lying on the orbital floor but more than half located inside the orbit is Grade 2, more than half of the line outside of the orbit is classified as Grade 3, and completely outside of the orbit is Grade 4[9]. SR, superior rectus muscle; MR, medial rectus muscle; ON, optical nerve; LR, lateral rectus muscle; IR, inferior rectus muscle.
Fig. 3.The two types of inferior orbital wall fracture. There are two broad types of inferior orbital wall fracture: trap-door (one side of bone fragment is attached to the orbital floor), and punched-out (both sides of bone fragment are unattached). Arrows are instruct the fracture line.
Patients by symptom status
| Group | Age (yr) | Location (right:left) | Symptom (diplopia:enophthalmos) | Surgical treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A (n=27) | 44.05 (17∼72) | 13:14 | None | 6 (22.2) |
| Group B (n=18) | 34.3 (10∼57) | 8:10 | 11:2 (5 were both) | 18 (100) |
| Total (n=45) | 38.5 (10∼72) | 21:24 | 6 (13.3) |
Values are presented as median (range), number only, or number (%).
Relationship of calculated values of orbital volume, extents of fracture segment, herniated volume with symptom status
| Area ( | Volume ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Non-affected site (mm2) | Affected site (mm2) | Relative area (%) | Non-affected site (mL) | Affected site (mm3) | Relative volume (%) | |
| Group A | 807.6±23.4 | 192.6±112.1 | 23.9±14.1 | 22.8±1.6 | 673.2±541.7 | 3.0±2.3 |
| Group B | 832.1±28.3 | 316.2±181.3 | 37.7±21.2 | 22.4±1.8 | 1,710.6±1,243.7 | 7.7±5.7 |
| Total | 817.4±28.2 | 242.0±156.0 | 29.4±18.6 | 22.6±1.7 | 1,088.2±1,026.2 | 4.9±4.6 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
Relationship of IRM position, fracture segment area, and herniated volume in each group
| Group A | Group B | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| No. of patients | Area (mm2) ( | Volume (mm3) ( | No. of patients | Area (mm2) ( | Volume (mm3) ( | |
| Grade 1 | 12 | 88.4±179.1 | 311.3±179.1 | 3 | 113.5±17.0 | 380.5±94.5 |
| Grade 2 | 11 | 258.8±659.3 | 659.3±135.7 | 3 | 133.2±31.0 | 476.9±52.4 |
| Grade 3 | 4 | 40.9±420.8 | 1,797.0±420.8 | 6 | 308.1±57.0 | 1,452.2±192.1 |
| Grade 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 517.0±130.5 | 3,250.9±716.0 |
Values are presented as number only or mean±standard deviation. Symptom status and higher grade were associated based on the Mann-Whitney test (P =0.001).
Relationship of fracture type, area, and volume in each group
| Group A | Group B | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| No. of patients | Area (mm2) | Volume (mm3) | No. of patients | Area (mm2) | Volume (mm3) | |
| Punched out ( | 8 | 196.4±90.4 | 708.1±364.9 | 11 | 330.3±165.5 | 1,705.0±993.0 |
| Trap door ( | 19 | 191.0±120.0 | 658.5±600.1 | 7 | 293.9±201.6 | 1,719.4±1,558.1 |
Values are presented as number only or mean±standard deviation.