CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07042763Updated Jul 4, 2025

Subciliary Closure in Orbital Fracture

An interventional study of Cutaneous Suture and Periosteal Suture in Orbital Floor Fractures, Surgical Wound Closure Techniques and Subciliary Surgical Approach, sponsored by Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Completed at 1 site in Mexico. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-07-04.

Sponsored by Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
100
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Title: Subciliary Closure in Orbital Fractures: A Comparison Between Cutaneous and Cutaneo-Periosteal Sutures

Brief Summary:

This prospective, experimental, and comparative study evaluated the impact of two different subciliary wound closure techniques in patients undergoing surgical repair of orbital floor fractures. The study was conducted at a tertiary care center in Mexico from July to October 2024 and included 100 adult patients with isolated orbital floor fractures, excluding LeFort-type fractures.

Participants were randomized into two groups: Group 1 received skin-only subciliary sutures, while Group 2 underwent closure using both cutaneous and periosteal sutures. The objective was to determine whether the addition of periosteal sutures influenced the rate of common postoperative complications, including eyelid retraction, ectropion, and the need for surgical reintervention.

Postoperative evaluations were conducted on days 8, 15, and 30. Outcomes measured included incidence of eyelid retraction, ectropion, reoperation rate, and any association with comorbidities such as smoking, diabetes, hypertension, or substance use.

The study found a statistically higher incidence of eyelid retraction in the group with combined periosteal and cutaneous closure at postoperative day 8 (16% vs. 2%, p=0.014) and day 15 (20% vs. 6%, p=0.037). However, no significant differences were noted in rates of ectropion or reintervention. Smoking, the most common comorbidity in the cohort, was not associated with a higher rate of complications.

This study suggests that skin-only closure may be preferable in subciliary orbital approaches, as it is associated with fewer cases of eyelid retraction without increasing the risk of other complications.

Read the detailed description

Orbital floor fractures are among the most frequent midfacial injuries and are typically managed through surgical reconstruction via a subciliary or transconjunctival approach. Despite the frequency of these procedures, there is limited evidence evaluating the role of closure technique-specifically, whether adding periosteal sutures to cutaneous closure affects postoperative outcomes.

This study was designed to investigate whether dual-layer closure (periosteum and skin) influences the incidence of lower eyelid complications such as retraction, ectropion, and need for reoperation, compared to skin-only closure in patients treated via the subciliary approach.

Eligible participants were adults diagnosed with orbital floor fractures indicated for open surgical reduction and internal fixation. All procedures were performed by experienced surgical teams following a standardized protocol. Patients were followed for one month after surgery, and clinical outcomes were systematically assessed at three timepoints (days 8, 15, and 30 postoperatively).

The primary outcome was the presence or absence of eyelid retraction. Secondary outcomes included incidence of ectropion, need for surgical revision, and association of complications with risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, and hypertension.

This trial addresses a clinical gap by evaluating the impact of periosteal suturing in orbital trauma surgery. Findings may help guide surgeons in optimizing closure techniques to improve functional and aesthetic outcomes while minimizing postoperative complications.

02

Conditions studied

  • Orbital Floor Fractures
  • Surgical Wound Closure Techniques
  • Subciliary Surgical Approach
  • Postoperative Complications in Maxillofacial Surgery

Keywords

  • Orbital Fractures
  • Eyelid Diseases
  • Surgical Wound Dehiscence
  • Suture Techniques
  • Postoperative Complications
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Adults ≥18 years of age
  • Diagnosis of orbital floor fracture requiring surgical intervention
  • Treatment planned through subciliary surgical approach
  • Ability to attend scheduled follow-up visits at postoperative day 8, 15, and 30
  • Signed informed consent obtained prior to study inclusion

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Fractures involving Le Fort I, II, or III patterns
  • History of prior orbital surgery or trauma on the affected side
  • Presence of active ocular infection or orbital cellulitis
  • Uncontrolled systemic disease (e.g., decompensated diabetes, bleeding disorders)
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women
  • Known non-compliance with postoperative care or follow-up
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
100 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Cutaneous Suture

    Subciliary incision closed with 5-0 nylon skin sutures only. No periosteal sutures were used.

    Procedure: Cutaneous Suture

  • Experimental
    Periosteal Suture

    Subciliary incision closed with both periosteal (4-0 Vicryl) and cutaneous (5-0 nylon) sutures.

    Procedure: Cutaneous Suture · Procedure: Periosteal Suture

Interventions

  • ProcedureCutaneous Suture

    Subciliary incision followed by closure using skin sutures only. The skin was closed with 5-0 nylon using subdermal interrupted sutures. No closure of the periosteal plane was performed.

  • ProcedurePeriosteal Suture

    Subciliary incision followed by closure of both the periosteum and skin layers. The periosteum was closed with absorbable 4-0 Vicryl sutures, and the skin was closed with 5-0 nylon using subdermal sutures.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Incidence of Lower Eyelid Retraction

    The presence of clinically observable lower eyelid retraction following subciliary surgical closure will be evaluated through physical examination. Eyelid retraction is defined as the inferior displacement of the lower eyelid margin exposing the sclera.

    Time frame: Postoperative Day 8, Day 15, and Day 30

Secondary outcomes

  1. Incidence of Ectropion

    Ectropion will be assessed by clinical inspection, defined as outward turning of the eyelid margin resulting in loss of eyelid-globe contact.

    Time frame: Postoperative Day 8, Day 15, and Day 30

  2. Need for Surgical Reintervention

    Participants requiring a second surgical procedure due to complications associated with eyelid retraction, ectropion, infection, or other closure-related issues will be recorded.

    Time frame: Within 30 days of initial surgery

Other outcomes

  1. Correlation Between Smoking Status and Eyelid Retraction

    This outcome assesses whether active smoking is associated with an increased incidence of lower eyelid retraction following subciliary surgical closure. Eyelid retraction will be evaluated by physical examination and defined as the inferior displacement of the eyelid margin exposing the sclera.

    Time frame: From enrollment to postoperative day 30

  2. Correlation Between Smoking Status and Ectropion

    This outcome evaluates whether active smoking correlates with the incidence of ectropion after orbital fracture repair. Ectropion is defined as outward turning of the eyelid margin with loss of eyelid-globe contact, assessed by clinical inspection.

    Time frame: From enrollment to postoperative day 30

  3. Correlation Between Smoking Status and Need for Surgical Reintervention

    This outcome assesses whether active smoking increases the need for a secondary surgical procedure due to complications such as eyelid retraction, ectropion, or wound-related problems.

    Time frame: From enrollment to 30 days after initial surgery

06

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital de Especialidades del Centro Médico Nacional de Occidente (CMNO) - IMSS
    Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Cornelius CP, Mayer P, Ehrenfeld M, Metzger MC. The orbits--anatomical features in view of innovative surgical methods. Facial Plast Surg. 2014 Oct;30(5):487-508. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1394303. Epub 2014 Nov 14. PubMed 25397705 ↗
  • Committeri U, Arena A, Carraturo E, Austoni M, Germano C, Salzano G, De Riu G, Giovacchini F, Maglitto F, Abbate V, Bonavolonta P, Califano L, Piombino P. Incidence of Orbital Side Effects in Zygomaticomaxillary Complex and Isolated Orbital Walls Fractures: A Retrospective Study in South Italy and a Brief Review of the Literature. J Clin Med. 2023 Jan 20;12(3):845. doi: 10.3390/jcm12030845. PubMed 36769492 ↗
  • Turvey TA, Golden BA. Orbital anatomy for the surgeon. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2012 Nov;24(4):525-36. doi: 10.1016/j.coms.2012.08.003. PubMed 23107426 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — This study does not plan to share individual participant data due to institutional restrictions and the non-pharmacologic nature of the intervention.

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07042763
Lead sponsor
Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social
Responsible party
Clotilde Fuentes-Orozco (Principal investigator, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jun 29, 2025
Start date
Jul 1, 2024
Primary completion
Oct 31, 2024
Completion
Oct 31, 2024
Last update
Jul 4, 2025

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion