Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41(04): 355-361
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.4.355
Original Article

Comparison of Absorbable Mesh Plate versus Titanium-Dynamic Mesh Plate in Reconstruction of Blow-Out Fracture: An Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes

Woon Il Baek
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Han Koo Kim
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Woo Seob Kim
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Tae Hui Bae
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background A blow-out fracture is one of the most common facial injuries in midface trauma. Orbital wall reconstruction is extremely important because it can cause various functional and aesthetic sequelae. Although many materials are available, there are no uniformly accepted guidelines regarding material selection for orbital wall reconstruction.

Methods From January 2007 to August 2012, a total of 78 patients with blow-out fractures were analyzed. 36 patients received absorbable mesh plates, and 42 patients received titanium-dynamic mesh plates. Both groups were retrospectively evaluated for therapeutic efficacy and safety according to the incidence of three different complications: enophthalmos, extraocular movement impairment, and diplopia.

Results For all groups (inferior wall fracture group, medial wall fractrue group, and combined inferomedial wall fracture group), there were improvements in the incidence of each complication regardless of implant types. Moreover, a significant improvement of enophthalmos occurred for both types of implants in group 1 (inferior wall fracture group). However, we found no statistically significant differences of efficacy or complication rate in every groups between both implant types.

Conclusions Both types of implants showed good results without significant differences in long-term follow up, even though we expected the higher recurrent enophthalmos rate in patients with absorbable plate. In conclusion, both types seem to be equally effective and safe for orbital wall reconstruction. In particular, both implant types significantly improve the incidence of enophthalmos in cases of inferior orbital wall fractures.

Keywords

Orbital fractures - Orbital implants - Absorbable implants - Titanium


Publication History

Received: 12 February 2014

Accepted: 01 April 2014

Article published online:
05 May 2022

© 2014. The Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, permitting unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Jank S, Emshoff R, Schuchter B. et al. Orbital floor reconstruction with flexible Ethisorb patches: a retrospective long-term follow-up study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95: 16-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kim IT, Choi JB. Normal range of exophthalmos values on orbit computerized tomography in Koreans. Ophthalmologica 2001; 215: 156-162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Tanaka T, Morimoto Y, Kito S. et al. Evaluation of coronal CT findings of rare cases of isolated medial orbital wall blow-out fractures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003; 32: 300-303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Caranci F, Cicala D, Cappabianca S. et al. Orbital fractures: role of imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2012; 33: 385-391
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 You JP, Kim DW, Jeon BJ. et al. Two-year follow-up on the use of absorbable mesh plates in the treatment of medial orbital wall fractures. Arch Plast Surg 2013; 40: 728-734
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Buchel P, Rahal A, Seto I. et al. Reconstruction of orbital floor fracture with polyglactin 910/polydioxanon patch (ethisorb): a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 646-650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dost P. Orbital floor reconstruction with autologous periosteum transplant. Laryngorhinootologie 1996; 75: 57-58
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Lai A, Gliklich RE, Rubin PA. Repair of orbital blow-out fractures with nasoseptal cartilage. Laryngoscope 1998; 108: 645-650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Johnson PE, Raftopoulos I. In situ splitting of a rib graft for reconstruction of the orbital floor. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 103: 1709-1711
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Guerra MF, Perez JS, Rodriguez-Campo FJ. et al. Reconstruction of orbital fractures with dehydrated human dura mater. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 58: 1361-1366
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Gierloff M, Seeck NG, Springer I. et al. Orbital floor reconstruction with resorbable polydioxanone implants. J Craniofac Surg 2012; 23: 161-164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Courtney DJ, Thomas S, Whitfield PH. Isolated orbital blowout fractures: survey and review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000; 38: 496-504
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Enislidis G. Treatment of orbital fractures: the case for treatment with resorbable materials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 869-872
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kontio R. Treatment of orbital fractures: the case for reconstruction with autogenous bone. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 863-868
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Potter JK, Ellis E. Biomaterials for reconstruction of the internal orbit. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 1280-1297
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Dietz A, Ziegler CM, Dacho A. et al. Effectiveness of a new perforated 0.15 mm poly-p-dioxanon-foil versus titanium-dynamic mesh in reconstruction of the orbital floor. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001; 29: 82-88
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Al-Sukhun J, Lindqvist C. A comparative study of 2 implants used to repair inferior orbital wall bony defects: autogenous bone graft versus bioresorbable poly-L/DL-Lactide [P(L/DL)LA 70/30] plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 1038-1048
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS. Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity A statistical evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20: 1055-1060
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ahlmann E, Patzakis M, Roidis N. et al. Comparison of anterior and posterior iliac crest bone grafts in terms of harvest-site morbidity and functional outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84: 716-720
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Takashima S, Tateishi J, Taguchi Y. et al. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with florid plaques after cadaveric dural graft in a Japanese woman. Lancet 1997; 350: 865-866
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Merten HA, Luhr HG. Resorbable synthetics (PDS foils) for bridging extensive orbital wall defects in an animal experiment comparison. Fortschr Kiefer Gesichtschir 1994; 39: 186-190
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Tuncer S, Yavuzer R, Kandal S. et al. Reconstruction of traumatic orbital floor fractures with resorbable mesh plate. J Craniofac Surg 2007; 18: 598-605
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Hwang K, Kim DH. Comparison of the supporting strength of a poly-L-lactic acid sheet and porous polyethylene (Medpor) for the reconstruction of orbital floor fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2010; 21: 847-853
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Haug RH, Nuveen E, Bredbenner T. An evaluation of the support provided by common internal orbital reconstruction materials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57: 564-570
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Zhou H, Fan X, Xiao C. Direct orbital manometry in normal and fractured orbits of Chinese patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 2282-2287
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar