Zhang Jian, He Xin, Qi Yanxiu, Zhou Pingping
Department of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jiamusi University, Jiamusi, China.
Department of Ophthalmology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiamusi University, Jiamusi, China.
Ann Transl Med. 2022 May;10(10):564. doi: 10.21037/atm-22-1465.
A large number of empirical studies on the surgical timing and approach of orbital fracture have been published, but which surgical timing and approach is better is still a dispute. We use a systematic review and meta-analysis to solve this problem.
We performed a systematic search in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Trials Database, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant literature. The search terms included those concerning or describing orbital fracture, timing, and approach, which are based on population, intervention, control, outcome, and study (PICOS) framework. The statistical software packages RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0 were used for data analysis. We sought to evaluate postoperative complications, and results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, funnel plots, Egger's test, and risk bias analysis were also performed on the included articles by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS).
A total of 7 trials involving 1,283 patients compared the surgical timing of ≤14 days versus >14 days, and another 14 trials involving 1,768 patients compared the surgical strategy of transconjunctival approach (TCA) with that of subciliary approach (SCA) for orbital fracture. The quality of all articles was higher than 7 points, which means all articles were at low risk of bias. Surgery conducted within 14 days significantly reduced the incidence of diplopia (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.83, P=0.005) and enophthalmos (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.83, P=0.02); TCA had a significantly lower incidence of ectropion (OR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.38, P<0.00001), scleral show (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.38, P<0.00001), and visible scar (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.65, P=0.33) compared to SCA, but had a significantly higher incidence of entropion (OR: 5.41, 95% CI: 1.83 to 15.96, P=0.002). There was no significant publication bias among our included studies.
The operation in ≤14 days is better than that in >14 days. However, regarding the choice of surgical approach, TCA and SCA have their advantages and disadvantages, the exploration of which requires further research.
关于眼眶骨折手术时机和手术方式已有大量实证研究发表,但哪种手术时机和手术方式更佳仍存在争议。我们采用系统评价和荟萃分析来解决这一问题。
我们在PubMed、Cochrane临床试验数据库、Embase和科学网数据库中进行系统检索以查找相关文献。检索词包括基于人群、干预、对照、结局和研究(PICOS)框架的与眼眶骨折、时机及手术方式相关或描述它们的词汇。使用统计软件包RevMan 5.4和Stata 14.0进行数据分析。我们试图评估术后并发症,结果以比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)表示。还使用纽卡斯尔 - 渥太华量表(NOS)对纳入文章进行森林图分析、敏感性分析、漏斗图分析、Egger检验和风险偏倚分析。
共有7项涉及1283例患者的试验比较了≤14天与>14天的手术时机,另有14项涉及1768例患者的试验比较了眼眶骨折经结膜入路(TCA)与睫毛下入路(SCA)的手术策略。所有文章质量均高于7分,这意味着所有文章的偏倚风险较低。14天内进行手术显著降低了复视发生率(OR:0.53,95%CI:0.34至0.83,P = 0.005)和眼球内陷发生率(OR:0.32,95%CI:0.12至0.83,P = 0.02);与SCA相比,TCA的睑外翻发生率(OR:0.20,95%CI:0.10至0.38,P<0.00001)、巩膜外露发生率(OR:0.22,95%CI:0.12至0.38,P<0.00001)和可见瘢痕发生率(OR:0.15,95%CI:0.03至0.65,P = 0.033)显著更低,但睑内翻发生率显著更高(OR:5.41,95%CI:1.83至15.96,P = 0.002)。我们纳入的研究中未发现显著的发表偏倚。
≤14天的手术效果优于>14天的手术。然而,关于手术方式的选择,TCA和SCA各有优缺点,对此的探索需要进一步研究。