4.2 Article

Orbital Floor Reconstruction With Resorbable Polydioxanone Implants

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 161-164

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182413edc

Keywords

Orbital floor fracture; orbital floor reconstruction; polydioxanone

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many different materials are proposed for reconstruction of traumatic orbital floor defects. Donor-site morbidity of autologous transplants and infections or extrusions of nonresorbable implants lead to a widespread use of resorbable, alloplastic materials such as polydioxanone (PDS). The goal of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of orbital floor fracture-related problems after surgical treatment using PDS. Ophthalmologic and clinical examinations were performed at 194 patients before orbital floor reconstruction, 14 days and 6 months after surgery (approximate defect sizes: <1 cm(2), n = 50; 1-2 cm(2), n = 97; 92 cm(2), n = 47). Clinical findings including the ocular motility, the sensibility of the infraorbital nerve, and the position of the globe were evaluated. For statistical analysis of categorical data, confidence intervals of percentages were determined. Linear relationships between 2 variables were assessed with Pearson correlation analysis. A reduced ocular motility was diagnosed in 60 patients (31%) before surgery; in 14 patients (7%), 2 weeks; and in 10 patients (5%), 6 months after surgery. Infraorbital hypesthesia was found in 120 patients (62%) before surgery; in 47 patients (24%), 2 weeks; and in 35 patients (18%), 6 months after surgery. An enophthalmos was present in 10 patients (5%) before surgery, and in 4 patients (2%), 6 months after surgery. Our data suggest that PDS is a suitable implant for orbital floor reconstruction with acceptable low rates of infraorbital hypesthesia, bulbus motility disturbances, and enophthalmos. Polydioxanone can also be used for orbital floor defects exceeding 2 cm(2).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available