English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A total of 59 cases of mild facial fractures (simple orbital wall fractures, 34 cases, other facial fractures, 25 cases) with the clinical suspects of orbital wall fractures were evaluated both by conventional views (Waters' and Caldwell views) and coronal CT scans. Conventional views were obtained, as an average, after 4 days and CT after 7 days of injuries. Both the medial wall and the floor were evaluated at two sites, i.e., anterior and posterior. The ethmoid-maxillary plate was also included in the study. The degree of fractures was classified as, no fractures, fractures of discontinuity, dislocation and fragmentation. The coronal CT images in bone window condition was used as reference and the findings were compared between conventional views and CT. The correct diagnosis was obtained as follows: orbital floor (anterior, 78%, posterior, 73%), medial orbital wall (anterior, 72%, posterior, 72%) and ethmoid-maxillary plate (64%). The false positive diagnosis was as follows: orbital floor (anterior only, 13%), medial orbital wall (anterior only, 7%) and ethmoid-maxillary plate (11%). The false negative diagnosis was as follows: orbital floor (anterior, 9%, posterior, 10%), medial orbital wall (anterior, 21%, posterior, 28%) and ethmoid-maxillary plate (21%). The results were compared with those of others in the past.

ORBITAL WALL FRACTURES: A COMPARISON OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY AND CONVENTIONAL VIEWS