Long-term results of high-density porous polyethylene implants in facial skeletal augmentation: An Indian perspective

ABSTRACT

Context: With the increasing emphasis on well-sculpted facial features, today there is a growing need for tools to augment the facial skeleton; either for cosmetic reasons or to re-contour deformities—congenital, post-traumatic and post-ablative. The limitations of autogenous materials has lead to evolution of numerous ‘alloplasts’, of which, high-density porous polyethylene (HDPE) seems to be a promising alternative. Aims: To evaluate the long term results of HDPE in facial skeletal augmentation in terms of achieving desired facial contour, patient satisfaction and complications. Settings: A tertiary care referral centre in a metropolitan set-up. Design: Case Series Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing HDPE implant insertion for facial skeletal augmentation between July 2001 and November 2009 were included in the study. A total of 70 HDPE implants were inserted in 44 patients. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon following standardized pre, intra and post-operative protocols. The results were evaluated with respect to improvement in facial contour desired and achieved, overall patient satisfaction and complications encountered. Results: The study included 44 patients with a male:female ratio of 1:1, a mean age of 25.09 years (14 to 58 years) and a mean follow-up of 45.34 months (0.5 to 100 months). HDPE implants were used to augment the nasal dorsum, maxilla, malar eminence, chin, mandibular body and angle, orbital rim and frontal region. The overall recontouring afforded by the HDPE implants was good, with most patients reporting satisfactory results. There were seven complications (10%), including three cases of deviation (4.29%), three cases of exposure (4.29%) and one case of sub-clinical infection (1.43%). None however necessitated implant removal. Nasal dorsal HDPE implants, especially those involving secondary surgery, suffered a much higher complication rate compared to other implants. Conclusions: HDPE is an alternative to autogenous grafts for facial skeletal augmentation with good long-term results and a low incidence of complications, provided there is adequate vascular soft tissue cover.

KEY WORDS

High density porous polyethylene - facial skeletal augmentation - alloplast

• REFERENCES

• 1 Morselli PG. The Minotaur syndrome: plastic surgery of the facial skeleton. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1993;17:99-102.
• 2 Edgerton MT Jr, Langman MW, Pruzinsky T. Patients seeking symmetrical recontouring for “perceived” deformities in the width of the face and skull. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1990;14:59-73.
• 3 Tessier P. The definitive plastic surgical treatment of the severe facial deformities of craniofacial dysostosis. Crouzon's and Apert's diseases. Plast Reconstr Surg 1971;48:419-42.
• 4 Salyer KE, Taylor DP. Bone grafts in craniofacial surgery. Clin Plast Surg 1987;14:27-35.
• 5 Maas CS, Merwin GE, Wilson J, Frey MD, Maves MD. Comparison of biomaterials for facial bone augmentation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;116:551-556.
• 6 Breadon GE, Kern EB, Neel HB 3rd. Autografts of uncrushed and crushed bone and cartilage. Experimental observations and clinical implications. Arch Otolaryngol 1979;105:75.
• 7 Louis PJ, Cuzalina LA. Alloplastic augmentation of the face. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2000;8:127-91.
• 8 Constantinides MS, Galli SK, Miller PJ, Adamson PA. Malar, submalar, and midfacial implants. Facial Plast Surg 2000;16:35-44.
• 9 Rubin LR. Polyethylene as a bone and cartilage substitute: A 32 year retrospective. In, Rubin LR(ed). Biomaterials in Reconstructive Surgery. St Louis, M O, C V Mosby, 1983; 474-93.
• 10 Ramirez OM. Aesthetic craniofacial surgery. Clin Plast Surg 1994;21:649-59.
• 11 Whitaker LA. Aesthetic contouring of the facial support system. Clin Plast Surg 1989;16:815-23.
• 12 Hinderer UT. Nasal base, maxillary and infraorbital implants-alloplastic. Clin Plast Surg 1991;18:87-105.
• 13 Menderes A, Baytekin C, Topcu A, Yilmaz M, Barutcu A. Craniofacial reconstruction with high-density porous polyethylene implants. J Craniofac Surg 2004;15:719-24.
• 14 Yaremchuk M J. Facial skeletal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;111:1818-27.
• 15 Romo T 3rd, Sclafani AP, Sabini P. Use of porous high-density polyethylene in revision rhinoplasty and in the platyrrhine nose. Aesthetic Plast Surg 1998;22:211-21.
• 16 Frodel JL, Lee S. The use of high-density polyethylene implants in facial deformities. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;124:1219-23.
• 17 Spector M, Flemming WR, Kreutner A. Bone growth into porous high density polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 1976;10:595-603.
• 18 Chen CT, Hu TL, Lai JB, Chen YC, Chen YR. Reconstruction of traumatic nasal deformity in Orientals. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010;63:257-64.
• 19 Romano JJ, Iliff NT, Manson PN. Use of Medpor porous polyethylene implants in 140 patients with facial fractures. J Craniofac Surg 1993;4:142-7.
• 20 Duman H, Deveci M, Uygur F, Sengezer M. Reconstruction of contour and anterior wall defects of frontal bone with a porous polyethylene implant. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1999;27:298-301.
• 21 Cenzi R, Farina A, Zuccarino L, Carinci F. Clinical outcome of 285 Medpor grafts used for craniofacial reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2005;16:526-30.
• 22 Neovius E, Engstrand T. Craniofacial reconstruction with bone and biomaterials: review over the last 11years. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009.