{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024464831804281346, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006880733944954129, 'mean_word_length': 5.678571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Endoscopic repair of orbital floor fractures: computed tomographic analysis using a cadaveric model.

OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficiency (and accuracy) of endoscopic repair versus transconjunctival repair for orbital floor fractures in a cadaveric model.


METHODS
In nine fresh cadavers, a standardized technique created orbital floor fractures. One orbit was repaired using an endoscopic transantral approach, whereas the other was repaired using a standard transconjunctival approach. Commercially available implants were used for floor reconstruction. A validated computed tomographic volumetric analysis of the orbits was performed at three time points: prefracture, postfracture, and postrepair. Student's t-test analyzed the percentage of volume change in the prefracture and postrepair stages for each approach.


RESULTS
The percentage of change between the prefracture and postrepair states was not statistically significant for transconjunctival (p = .834) or endoscopic (p = .366) repair. The average differences between transconjunctival repair and endoscopic repair were not statistically significant (p = .732).


CONCLUSIONS
This study objectively confirms the efficiency of the endoscopic repair of orbital floor fractures when compared with traditional techniques in the cadaveric model.