Comparison of the Outcomes of Blowout Fracture Repair According to the Orbital Implant

Han, Dae Heon; Chi, Mijung

doi:10.1097/scs.0b013e31821cc2b5

Cited by 32 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…35 Advantages include ease in modeling and adapting. 42 Previous studies have shown long-term stability and tensile strength. No significant change in orbital volume has been found in long-term follow-up.…”

Section: Porous Polyethylenementioning

confidence: 99%

Materials Used for Reconstruction After Orbital Floor Fracture

Avashia¹,

Sastry²,

Fan³

et al. 2012

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in biotechnology continue to introduce new materials for reconstruction of orbital floor fractures. Which material is best fit for orbital floor reconstruction has been a controversial topic. Individual surgeon preferences have been supported by inconsistent inconclusive data. The purpose of this study was to assess and analyze published evidence supporting various materials used for orbital floor reconstruction and to develop a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. A systematic literature review was performed from which 48 studies were selected after primary and secondary screening based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. This cumulatively included 3475 separate orbital floor reconstructions. Results revealed risk and benefit profiles for all materials. Autologous calvarial bone grafts, porous polyethylene, and polydioxanone (PDS) were most widely used for orbital floor reconstruction. Increased infection rates were reported with polyglactin 910/PDS composites and silastic rubber. Ocular motility was reduced most with lyophilized dura and PDS. Preoperative and postoperative rates for diplopia and enophthalmos varied among the materials. In conclusion, our results revealed continued inadequate evidence to exclusively support the use of any one biomaterial/implant for orbital floor reconstruction. Results have served to create a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. Our authors propose certain parameters for future studies seeking to demonstrate a comparison between 2 or more materials for orbital floor reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Porous Polyethylenementioning

confidence: 99%

Materials Used for Reconstruction After Orbital Floor Fracture

Avashia¹,

Sastry²,

Fan³

et al. 2012

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a general consensus that the ideal material for the repair of the blow-out fractures should: be strong enough to support the orbital contents; have sustainable mechanical properties; have a short setting time; be noncarcinogenic and biocompatible (Han and Chi, 2011;Tanag et al, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new option for the reconstruction of orbital floor defects with heterologous cortical bone

Özel

Fındıkçıoğlu

Sezgin

et al. 2015

Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Porous polyethylene is easy to mold and adapt and allows rigid fixation and vascular ingrowth; however, it may form adhesions to exposed extra ocular muscles. [75][76][77][78] Titanium mesh implants, in contrast, are biocompatible and easy to contour, but are not easy to place, especially with deep orbital fractures, as the plate edges often catch on periorbital tissues. Also, titanium can be associated with intense fibrosis, making secondary surgery a challenge.…”

Section: Permanentmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Implantassociated infections include implant migration, infection, exposure, palpability, or local inflammatory reaction, as outlined above. [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85] Serious complications include postoperative optic neuropathy, blindness, and retrobulbar hema toma. Although rare, these should be discussed in detail with each patient and treatment plans should be individualized to minimize risks and maximize outcomes.…”

Section: Complicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%