Orbital blowout fractures are a common occurrence following orbital trauma. Depending on the size of the defect and the contents that have herniated or incarcerated, possible sequelae include enophthalmos, diplopia, dystopia, and entrapment. Surgical intervention aims to prevent or alleviate this through the use of a bone graft or an alloplastic implant to reconstitute the continuity of the orbit. However, in doing so, the implant itself may result in the unexpected adherence of the periorbita, resulting in orbital adherence syndrome. We present two cases of orbital adherence syndrome following the use of titanium mesh for orbital floor reconstruction. In both cases, we also delineate the management of this syndrome. Our first patient reported good recovery after surgical intervention to relieve the tethering to the titanium mesh and subsequent placement of a smooth interface implant. The other patient was managed nonsurgically with resolution of symptoms. We highlight possible signs that might suggest the need for early surgical intervention. Orbital adherence syndrome is a poorly described and understood phenomenon and appears to occur after the use of large-pored titanium mesh for orbital reconstruction. Prevention is possible through careful patient selection and the placement of a smooth interface medium in the initial surgery.

Introduction: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of Parkinson disease is susceptible to complications, such as hardware extrusion, most commonly at the scalp and chest. The authors describe their experience with the management of hardware extrusion and reconstruction with one of the largest single-institution experience and suggest an evidence-based treatment algorithm for the management of such cases. Methods: A retrospective review of hospital records was performed to identify patients who underwent DBS-related surgery and reconstruction from January 2015 to April 2020. Management of these patients involved culture-directed antibiotics, local wound debridement, various forms of reconstruction, and hardware removal when indicated. Results: Ninety-four patients with 131 DBS-related procedures were included. Twelve patients (12.8%) had hardware extrusion, of which 6 occurred primarily at the scalp and 6 occurred primarily at the chest. Primary closure of scalp wounds (odds ratio, 0.05 [0.004-0.71], P = 0.035) was negatively associated with treatment success. The type of reconstruction of chest wounds did not affect its success ( P = 0.58); however, none of them involved a new surgical bed, such as contralateral or hypochondrial placement. Conclusions: Hardware extrusion is a significant complication of DBS-related surgery. Management of extrusion at the scalp should involve the use of tensionfree, well-vascularized locoregional flaps as opposed to primary closure. Implantable pulse generator extrusions at the chest can be managed with both primary closure and repositioning in a new surgical bed. Extruded DBS implants may be salvaged with appropriate reconstructive considerations, and the authors suggest an evidence-based treatment algorithm.