Use of a monopolar microneedle device in a transconjunctival, retroseptal approach. Issue 12 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gander, Thomas; Rostetter, Claudio; Blumer, Michael; Wagner, Maximilian; Schumann, Paul; Wiedemeier, Daniel B.; Rücker, Martin; Essig, Harald
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 45:Issue 12(2017)
• Page Start: 1934
• Page End: 1937
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Monopolar device -- Microneedle -- Transconjunctival approach -- Lid retraction -- Symblepharon; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.09.021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Transconjunctival approach is a standard procedure to address fractures of orbit and the infraorbital rim. Modifications such as transcaruncular or lateral canthal widening allow for extended orbital wall exposure. Especially concerning aesthetics, the transconjunctival approach shows benefits compared to the transcutaneous incisions, such as the transciliary and infraorbital access. Moreover, transconjunctival approach is favored in the literature concerning lid retraction. Monopolar devices have become popular in surgery in the past decades because of good depth control and simultaneous hemostasis with consequently improved overview. Also numerous surgeons use monopolar device in orbital surgery, their safety have never been proved. In this study monopolar microneedle device is compared with conventional access by scalpel concerning lid retraction, foreign body sensation and formation of symblepharon. In our collective complication rates were comparable between the scalpel and the microneedle group. The monopolar microneedle device shows favorable results compared with the scalpel and is easy to handle. Weather the conventional access by scalpel or the access by monopolar device is selected, is rather driven by the surgeon's preferences than by statistical relevance. Nevertheless, monopolar microneedle device shows better depth control and simplifies readaptation of the conjunctival wound's margin.