Subtarsal Versus Transconjunctival Approach—Esthetic and Functional Long-Term Experience

Purpose In addition to the transconjunctival approach, the subtarsal incision is one of the most commonly used procedures for surgical exploration of the orbital floor and infraorbital rim. However, available data are limited regarding validity and long-term esthetic and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to verify the favorable clinical results of the subtarsal approach and compare these results with the transconjunctival procedure. Materials and Methods Forty-five patients (subtarsal group, n = 30; transconjunctival group, n = 15) were examined 6 to 30 months after surgical intervention using a standardized follow-up. Clinically noted complications, such as paresthesia, epiphora, or ocular foreign body sensation, were scored. Postoperative scar formation was investigated using the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) and recorded according to standardized photographic documentation procedures. Photographic images were evaluated in a blinded manner by experts and nonexperts according to fixed criteria. Concomitant photographic evaluation was performed by age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Recorded data analyzed by χ 2 test and unrelated samples analyzed by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were statistically significant ( P  = .05). Results Comparable complication rates were found for the 2 approaches without any significant differences ( P  = .29). Using the subtarsal approach, discrete scar formation was discerned in 7 of 30 cases. Moreover, categorization by the mVSS showed that, in 93.3% of cases, the scar was measured as unremarkable hyper- or hypotrophy (mean, 1.7 of 10 possible points). No statistically significant differences in conspicuous scars and asymmetries were observed between the 2 approaches in the nonexpert and expert groups ( P > .05). Conclusion The results of the present study confirm that the subtarsal approach is a safe and esthetically favorable method.