Now its obvious that Pelo has the best approach from all surgeons that you have consulted. Forget endoscopic approach and others.
Its likely the same approach as in the medical manual that I have posted.
I think You missunderstood their approaches.
The same approach makes I.
All the same, with 2 differences:
P: 50% that augumentation of the orbital floor will be necessary
I: for 100% not necessary
Can't understand why I. told me, that he will just rotate the bone in the opposite way the bone moved after fracture, hence orbital volume won't change, and since the displacement is not big, the existing parts of orbitall wall should be enough to hold all orbital contents in the place. So do not know why P. is a little less sure about this part. Less experience? or Iannetti is too optimistic or P is more safe option. At this point I remind myself about prices differences , hmmm
??
I had only one consultation for each of them and hard to determine where is the problem - key point. I asked P. again about this issue via mail. As I said I asked him only 2-3 questions ...which developed in my mind after I met I. and also I'm waiting for a few postop photos (examples). I hope he will be my good choice. But I have to wait for last data - information. I will see
P: needs to make incision on the lower eyelid to access orbital floor
I: does not need - he will get access there using endoscope
Both of them are gonna make incision on the side of the eyebrow to get access to upper part of the malar bone
So I think now it's more clear. What do you think ? about these differences
Is it good way to discuss with one surgeon about surgical approaches of the other surgeon ? I have not acted in this way, but perhaps It is wrong.
Everyone, who reads this, give me some advice please