How well the transconjunctival approach vs transcutaneous approaches work for fixing facial fractures
Official title: Clinical Outcomes of Transconjunctival Vs Transcutaneous Approaches in Orbital Fracture Repair : ( Randomized Clinical Trial)
Run by Alexandria University · NCT07759440 · Data updated 2026-11-12
This study tests whether a transconjunctival incision or a transcutaneous incision better fixes zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures in adults needing open reduction and internal fixation.
Quick facts
| Study type | Interventional |
|---|---|
| Ages | 20 Years to 50 Years |
| Sex | All |
| Enrollment | 75 (estimated) |
| Sponsor | Alexandria University Academic / other |
| Locations | 1 site (Alexandria, Outside US and Canada) |
| Status | Recruiting |
| Started | May 25, 2026 |
| Main results expected | November 25, 2026 |
| Study ends | November 25, 2026 |
| Registry record updated | August 12, 2026 |
| Trial ID | NCT07759440 on ClinicalTrials.gov |
Is this trial a fit for you?
✓Likely a good fit
Adults aged 20–50 with orbital floor or zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures requiring open reduction and internal fixation, without active infection or conjunctival disease and without complicated comminution.
✕Probably not a fit
Patients with lacerations in the periorbital region, comminuted fractures with bone loss, infection at the fracture site, or active conjunctival disease may not benefit from the tested approach.
A plain-English reading of the study's rules. Only the study team can confirm whether you qualify.
What this trial studies
This trial compares two surgical approaches for repairing orbital fractures: the transconjunctival route and traditional transcutaneous incisions. Adults aged 20–50 with orbital floor or zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures requiring open reduction and internal fixation are eligible. All procedures involve orbital fracture reduction and rigid fixation, with outcomes focused on safety, accuracy of fracture alignment, and cosmetic results. The study takes place at Alexandria University in Alexandria, outside the US and Canada. Data on complications, functional outcomes, and patient satisfaction will inform which approach provides better balance of exposure, stability, and aesthetics.
Why it matters
Potential benefit: If successful, the findings could help surgeons choose the approach that provides better cosmetic and functional results for orbital fracture repair.
How similar studies have gone: Previous studies in facial fracture approaches have shown differences in cosmetic and exposure outcomes, but direct comparison data for these two approaches are limited, making this investigation informative.
Who can join: the full rules
Show full inclusion / exclusion criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Patient with orbital fractures (e.g., orbital floor or zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures) require open reduction with internal fixation. • Adult patient between 20 and 50 years with no gender predilections. Exclusion Criteria: * • Existing lacerations in the inferior and lateral periorbital regions. * Comminuted fracture with bone loss. * Existence of infection at the fracture line. * Presence of acute or chronic conjunctival diseases.
Where it's running
-
Alexandria university
Alexandria, Outside US and Canada, Egypt Recruiting
Study contacts
- Study coordinator: Mona s Oraby, PHd
- Email: mona.oraby@alexu.edu.eg
- Phone: +201000775330
Similar studies
Other studies for the same condition or treatment. Recruiting studies are listed first.
-
Pre-adapted 3D-printed, patient-specific mesh for unilateral orbital fractures with or without navigation
This study tests whether pre-bending an in-stock titanium mesh using a patient’s 3D-printed skull model improves repair outcomes for unilateral orbital fractures compared with conventional free-hand bending and with navigation-assisted placement.
-
Single vs. double stapling and purse-string techniques after rectal cancer surgery
This trial tests whether using a single-stapling method to join the bowel after rectal cancer surgery results in fewer leaks compared with the double-stapling method.
-
TAVI and PCI vs SAVR and CABG in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and CAD
This observational study compares TAVI plus PCI to SAVR plus CABG for patients who have both severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease.
-
Primary anastomosis vs Bishop-Koop for neonatal jejunoileal atresia
This study tests whether primary anastomosis or a Bishop-Koop procedure better supports recovery in newborns with jejunoileal atresia.
-
AI-based psychiatric simulation to reduce stigma and boost readiness in nursing students
A randomized trial will test whether an AI-powered simulation program helps fourth-year nursing students at Alexandria University think more positively about mental illness and feel more prepared to work in psychiatric care.
-
Biomin fluoride varnish vs. Duraphat, with or without diode laser, for white spot lesions in primary teeth
This trial tests whether Biomin fluoride varnish, alone or with diode laser, can better remineralize white spot lesions in young children than standard Duraphat varnish.
How to take part
- Review the eligibility criteria above with your treating physician.
- Check the official listing on ClinicalTrials.gov for the latest contact details and recruitment status.
- Contact the study coordinator or principal investigator to ask for pre-screening. Pre-screening is free and never obligates you to enroll.