| Literature DB >> 36051809 |
Gayathri R Nair1, M S Senthil Kumar1.
Abstract
Aim and Objective: Our study was an observational and evolutional to analyze the significance of orbital volume calculation in predicting the probability or tendency of developing late enopthalmous on patients with unilateral orbital fracture with or without associated midface injury reported to our hospital. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Enopthalmous; MIMICS; middle third face fracture; midface fracture; orbit; orbital volume; zygomaticomaxillary complex fracture
Year: 2022 PMID: 36051809 PMCID: PMC9426691 DOI: 10.4103/njms.njms_379_21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Natl J Maxillofac Surg ISSN: 0975-5950
Figure 1Axial, coronal, and sagittal view from computed tomography determining the extend of the three-dimensional image
Figure 3Separating the right and left orbit and estimating the volume
Etiology of fracture in Group A and Group B patients
| Diagnosis | Count percentage within the group | Group A ( | Group B ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unilateral Lefort II | 40 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Panfacial trauma with orbital fracture | 6.67 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| ZMC fracture | 33.33 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Isolated orbital fracture | 20 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
ZMC: Zygomaticomaxillary complex
Volume assessment in patients managed surgically
| Patient number | Volume of fractured orbit (mm3) | Volume of contralateral normal orbit (mm3) | Difference (mm3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.735 | 24.079 | 0.344 |
| 2 | 18.374 | 18.374 | 0.00 |
| 3 | 23.501 | 23.500 | 0.001 |
| 4 | 19.128 | 21.508 | 2.380 |
| 5 | 28.436 | 27.925 | 0.511 |
| 6 | 19.618 | 30.146 | 10.528 |
| 7 | 25.677 | 30.714 | 5.037 |
| 8 | 27.393 | 26.986 | 0.407 |
| 9 | 22.641 | 19.191 | 3.450 |
Volume assessment in patients managed conservatively
| Patient number | Volume of fractured orbit (mm3) | Volume of contralateral normal orbit (mm3) | Difference (mm3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.294 | 20.356 | 0.062 |
| 2 | 23.322 | 27.078 | 3.756 |
| 3 | 28.003 | 31.954 | 3.954 |
| 4 | 22.569 | 24.238 | 1.669 |
| 5 | 33.891 | 34.726 | 0.835 |
| 6 | 34.227 | 28.003 | 6.224 |
Classification patient in to low-, medium-, and high-expansion groups on percentage of volume change
| Orbital expansion | Total | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Low (<2%) | Medium (2%-20%) | High (>20%) | ||
| Enopthalmous | ||||
| Absent | ||||
| Count | 6 | 7 | 0 | 13 |
| Percentage within enopthalmous | 46.2 | 53.8 | 0.0 | 100.0 |
| Present | ||||
| Count | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Percentage within enopthalmous | 0.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Total | ||||
| Count | 6 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| Percentage within enopthalmous | 40.0 | 46.7 | 13.3 | 100.0 |
Graph 1Graph depicting the number of patients and the percentage of rbital expansion (increase in volume) compared to the contralateral eye