Table 5. Incidence of functional and aesthetic deficits related to the time of interference, site of injury, and depth of injury of periorbital trauma injuries.

		No.	Function deficit				p -Value	Aesthetic deficit				p -Value
			Yes		No			Yes		No
			No.	Row no. %	No.	Row no. %		No.	Row no. %	No.	Row no. %
Time	Immediate	222	7	3.20%	215	96.80%	<0.001 a	32	14.40%	190	85.60%	<0.001 a
	Delayed	38	18	47.40%	20	52.60%		25	65.80%	13	34.20%
Region	Periocular	112	21	18.75%	91	81.25%	<0.001 b	27	24.11%	83	74.11%	0.606 b
	Malar	25	0	0.00%	25	100.00%		5	20.00%	20	80.00%
	Frontal	29	0	0.00%	29	100.00%		6	20.69%	23	79.31%
	Temple	4	0	0.00%	4	100.00%		0	0.00%	4	100.00%
	Extended	90	3	3.33%	87	96.67%		17	18.89%	73	81.11%
Depth	Simple	104	1	1.00	103	99.00	0.001 a	17	16.30	87	83.70	0.069 a
	Composite	69	8	11.60	61	88.40		14	20.30	55	79.70
	Complex	38	8	21.10	30	78.90		14	36.80	24	63.20
	Isolated bony	49	7	14.30	42	85.70		10	20.40	39	79.60
Total		260	24	9.23%	236	90.77%		55	21.15%	205	78.85%

Notes: p -Values represent the difference between raw categories regarding the presence or absence of the functional deficits and aesthetic deficits.

Timing of intervention and type of injury in terms of depth and site all influenced the functional outcome.

The highest functional deficits were found in injuries localized to periocular region or the extended types including the periocular region.

We compared injuries described by depth as regards postoperative deficits including functional and aesthetic using “chi-squared test.” It showed significant difference between the four categories as regards the functional deficits. The category with the highest deficit frequency is complex injuries, and the least is the simple injuries. There was no significant difference between the four categories as regards the aesthetic deficits.

^aChi-squared test was used.

^bExact test was used.