Endoscopic Endonasal Versus Transfacial Approach for Blowout Fractures of the Medial Orbital Wall

In the last decades, the introduction of computed tomography has allowed an increase in the number of diagnosed fractures of the medial orbital wall. To repair medial wall fractures, many surgical techniques have been proposed (1), each one with its advantages and disadvantages. In this study, we compared endoscopic endonasal and transcutaneous reduction approaches in terms of surgery time and clinical outcome. Between 2001 and 2005, 81 patients with orbital wall fractures were treated at our department. Among these 81 patients, 24 (29.63%) were affected by a medial orbital fracture. Patients with fracture to both floor and medial walls underwent floor reduction by a transcutaneous subpalpebral approach (n = 9, 11.1%), whereas patients with isolated medial wall fracture underwent medial wall reduction by a transcutaneous subpalpebral approach using alloplastic implants (n = 8, 9.88%) or were treated by endoscopic approach (n = 5, 6.17%). After surgery, oculomotor function improved in all 22 patients. None of the patients had complications. Computed tomography revealed a well-consolidated site of fracture in both endoscopic endonasal and transcutaneous approaches. The average operating time for endoscopic endonasal and transfacial approach was 50 and 45 minutes, respectively. In this paper, the author proposed a results comparison between the endoscopic approach and the transcutaneous one.