Talk:Orbital blowout fracture

My plan for the edits includes 1. Adding surgical emergencies 2. Adding pictures of different clinical sigs of diagnosis 3). Adding the guidelines for management 4. Adding materials available for surgical treatment 5.) adding followup management post operatively in depth

I believe that this should probably be either labeled as a stub or moved and added to an existing article, such as a page about blunt trauma to the head or something, yes I do. --TheChrisParker 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Date discrepancy?

It says the term was coined in 1957, citation provided is from 1987. I couldn't access the article, maybe it says they've been using the term since 57. Any comments?

--Clairemkelly (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

i came to the discussion page because i also noticed this discrepancy. the term is older than 1987. i was involved in the treatment of 2 such injuries in viet nam in 1967,and this was the diagnostic term we applied, and i suffered one in college in 1970. mine was w/o diplopia and resolved w/o treatment. i think possibly the error lies with pubmed.Toyokuni3 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This Hurts

It really hurts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.181.12 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiProject Medicine Winter 2023 UCF COM

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 3 February 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gallonin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nrauto.

— Assignment last updated by DLEMERGEBM (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

My plan for the edits includes 1. Adding surgical emergencies 2. Adding pictures of different clinical sigs of diagnosis 3). Adding the guidelines for management 4. Adding materials available for surgical treatment 5.) adding followup management post operatively in depth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallonin (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was an interesting article and I liked the edits you made. It looks like you followed through on all the suggested edits in your workplan, and I felt like the additions you made to the Theories and History sections were especially helpful in completing the article. There were just a couple small formatting things in the article I wanted to mention:

-         It looks like the text in ‘materials for implant’ was intended to be a bullet-point list, but just didn’t want to cooperate

-         The ‘Clinical Pearl’ section was blank, were you intending to add to the section or maybe remove it?

-         Seemed like there could be some capitalizations and periods added/removed from sentences like “blowout fractures are uncommon and rare, respectively. .” “the controversies debate on the topics of timing of surgery” “However the lamina papyrcea is the same in all ethnicities so this is more commonly broken in African Americans”

This was a good read, I thought your work on the article was great! Nrauto (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Nrauto (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)