Hossein E Jazayeri1, Nima Khavanin2, Jason W Yu3, Joseph Lopez2, Karan P Ganjawalla4, Tatyana Shamliyan5, R John Tannyhill6, Amir H Dorafshar7. 1. DMD Candidate, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Resident, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD. 3. Fellow, Hansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, New York University, New York, NY. 4. Resident, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Research Scientist, Evidera, Waltham, MA. 6. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Program Director and Instructor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA. 7. Professor and Chief, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: amir_dorafshar@rush.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To date, no clear evidence-based guidelines exist pertaining to the ideal timing to perform surgical treatment of orbital fractures. The purpose of this study was to determine if early treatment of orbital fractures resulted in better patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and implemented a systematic review and meta-analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between different time intervals between orbital injury and surgical intervention. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registry were queried. The quality of evidence was based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The predictor variable was the timing of operative repair (early vs late). The outcome variable was complete recovery. Other variables of interest were diplopia, enophthalmos, and preoperative motility restriction. Meta-analyses were performed when definitions of active and control interventions and patient outcomes were deemed similar. In addition, χ2 tests were performed to determine differences in clinical outcomes between early and late operative repair. RESULTS: Of the 1,160 articles reviewed, 20 met the inclusion criteria. Surgery performed less than 2 weeks after injury was significantly associated with greater odds of complete recovery of symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 6.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.35-35.06]), as well as a lower incidence of postoperative diplopia (OR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]) and enophthalmos (OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]). Repair performed less than 30 days after injury was associated complete resolution of preoperative motility restriction (OR, 24.6 [95% CI, 1.30-462.34]) as well as diplopia. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the timing of surgery and definition of patient outcomes, as well as variations in methods of evaluating postoperative outcomes, potentiate the risk of bias and warrant downgrading of the quality of evidence in a study. The timing of repair varied among 2, 4, and 8 weeks after injury. However, a short time to surgical intervention was significantly associated with resolution of vertical dystopia, postoperative enophthalmos, and motility restriction.
PURPOSE: To date, no clear evidence-based guidelines exist pertaining to the ideal timing to perform surgical treatment of orbital fractures. The purpose of this study was to determine if early treatment of orbital fractures resulted in better patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed and implemented a systematic review and meta-analysis to test the null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between different time intervals between orbital injury and surgical intervention. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registry were queried. The quality of evidence was based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The predictor variable was the timing of operative repair (early vs late). The outcome variable was complete recovery. Other variables of interest were diplopia, enophthalmos, and preoperative motility restriction. Meta-analyses were performed when definitions of active and control interventions and patient outcomes were deemed similar. In addition, χ2 tests were performed to determine differences in clinical outcomes between early and late operative repair. RESULTS: Of the 1,160 articles reviewed, 20 met the inclusion criteria. Surgery performed less than 2 weeks after injury was significantly associated with greater odds of complete recovery of symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 6.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.35-35.06]), as well as a lower incidence of postoperative diplopia (OR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]) and enophthalmos (OR, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]). Repair performed less than 30 days after injury was associated complete resolution of preoperative motility restriction (OR, 24.6 [95% CI, 1.30-462.34]) as well as diplopia. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the timing of surgery and definition of patient outcomes, as well as variations in methods of evaluating postoperative outcomes, potentiate the risk of bias and warrant downgrading of the quality of evidence in a study. The timing of repair varied among 2, 4, and 8 weeks after injury. However, a short time to surgical intervention was significantly associated with resolution of vertical dystopia, postoperative enophthalmos, and motility restriction.