Materials Used for Reconstruction After Orbital Floor Fracture

被引:71
作者
Avashia, Yash J. [1 ]
Sastry, Ananth [1 ]
Fan, Kenneth L. [1 ]
Mir, Haaris S. [2 ]
Thaller, Seth R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miami, Miller Sch Med, Miami, FL 33136 USA
[2] Univ Miami, Miller Sch Med, Dept Surg, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Miami, FL 33136 USA
关键词
Orbital floor reconstruction; biomaterials; implants; orbital floor fractures; WALL DEFECTS; BONE-GRAFTS; BLOWOUT FRACTURES; RESORBABLE MESH; CARTILAGE GRAFT; REPAIR; IMPLANTS; DURA; EXPERIENCE; FIXATION;
D O I
10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825aada1
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1991 / 1997
页数:7
相关论文
共 68 条
[41]  
Mauclaire H, 1908, B MEM SOC CHIR PARIS, V34, P232
[42]  
MAURIELLO JA, 1984, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V91, P102
[43]  
Miyasaka Muneo, 2008, Tokai J Exp Clin Med, V33, P35
[44]  
Morax S, 1993, Ann Chir Plast Esthet, V38, P445
[45]   THE USE OF SILASTIC AS AN ORBITAL IMPLANT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF ORBITAL WALL DEFECTS - REVIEW OF 311 CASES TREATED OVER 20 YEARS [J].
MORRISON, AD ;
SANDERSON, RC ;
MOOS, KF .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 1995, 53 (04) :412-417
[46]  
NOLASCO FP, 1995, OTOLARYNG HEAD NECK, V112, P549, DOI 10.1177/019459989511200408
[47]   Nylon foil "Wraparound" repair of combined orbital floor and medial wall fractures [J].
Nunery, William R. ;
Tao, Jeremiah P. ;
Johl, Sukhjit .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2008, 24 (04) :271-275
[48]   Smooth nylon foil (SupraFOIL) orbital implants in orbital fractures: A case series of 181 patients [J].
Park, D. J. John ;
Garibaldi, Daniel C. ;
Iliff, Nicholas T. ;
Grant, Michael P. ;
Merbs, Shannath L. .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2008, 24 (04) :266-270
[49]  
PARKIN JL, 1987, LARYNGOSCOPE, V97, P1
[50]   Reconstruction of orbital wall defects with bioactive glass plates [J].
Peltola, Matti ;
Kinnunen, Ilpo ;
Aitasalo, Kalle .
JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2008, 66 (04) :639-646