Comparison between Subtarsal and Infraorbital Approaches for The Management of Infraorbital Rim and Orbital Floor Fracture

Open Access

Abstract

Background: Subtarsal or infraorbital incisions can be utilized for managing orbital fractures. The subtarsal technique typically offers superior cosmetic and functional results, while the infraorbital technique is quicker but can lead to more noticeable scars. This study evaluates the two methods regarding aesthetic outcomes, functional restoration, and surgical complications. Methods & Materials: This prospective study at Dhaka Medical College involved 30 patients with infraorbital fractures, categorized into subtarsal and infraorbital groups. All received CT evaluations and surgical correction using mini-plates. A follow-up at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months assessed complications, surgical duration, and cosmetic results. Data were examined to compare outcomes between the two methods. Results: In this study involving 30 individuals with infraorbital fractures, the majority were young men. Unilateral fractures occurred most frequently, with the primary cause being road traffic collisions. Complications occurring early and late were more prevalent in the infraorbital group. The operative duration was less for infraorbital access (45 ± 6 min compared to 52 ± 7 min), whereas the subtarsal method experienced fewer complications (26.7% versus 46.7%) and produced superior aesthetic results (good–excellent: 80% versus 53.3%). Conclusion: The subtarsal method for infraorbital fractures resulted in fewer early and late complications and better aesthetic results compared to the infraorbital method. Even though it was a bit longer, it delivered improved cosmetic outcomes, rendering it a safer and more aesthetically pleasing choice, particularly when appearance is a key concern.