Download PDF
CC BY-NC 4.0 · Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41(04): 362-365
DOI: 10.5999/aps.2014.41.4.362
Original Article

Safety of Silastic Sheet for Orbital Wall Reconstruction

Seong June Moon
Department of Plastic Surgery, Ewha Womans University Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Hyun Suk Suh
Department of Plastic Surgery, Ewha Womans University Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
Bo Young Park
Department of Plastic Surgery, Ewha Womans University Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
,
So Ra Kang
Department of Plastic Surgery, Ewha Womans University Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Background Many implants are being used for the reconstruction of orbital wall fractures. The effect of the choice of implant for the reconstruction of an orbital wall fracture on the surgical outcome is under debate. The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of orbital wall reconstruction of small orbital wall fractures on the basis of the implants used.

Methods The authors conducted a retrospective study using electronic databases. Between March 2001 and December 2012, 461 patients with orbital wall fractures were included in this study. Among them, 431 patients in whom the fracture size was less than 300 mm2 were analyzed. The fracture size was calculated using computed tomography scans of the orbit in the sagittal and coronal images. Cases in which the fracture size was less than 300 mm2 were included in this study.

Results One hundred and twenty-nine patients were treated with silastic sheets; 238 patients were treated with titanium meshes; and absorbable meshes were used in the case of 64 patients. Overall, 13 patients required revision, and the revision rate was 3.0%. The revision rate of the silastic sheet group was 5.4%. In the multivariable analysis, the revision rate of the group reconstructed with silastic sheets was highly statistically significant (P=0.043, odds ratio=3.65). However, other factors such as age, sex, fracture type, and fracture size were not significant.

Conclusions Reconstruction of orbital wall fractures with silastic sheets may cause more complications than that with other materials such as titanium meshes and absorbable meshes.

Keywords

Orbital fracture - Silicone

This article was presented at the Annual Meeting of Korean Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons on November 1, 2013 in Seoul, Korea.




Publication History

Received: 05 February 2014

Accepted: 19 May 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 Cole P, Boyd V, Banerji S. et al. Comprehensive management of orbital fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120: 57S-63S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Brucoli M, Arcuri F, Cavenaghi R. et al. Analysis of complications after surgical repair of orbital fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2011; 22: 1387-1390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Park MS, Kim YJ, Kim H. et al. Prevalence of Diplopia and Extraocular Movement Limitation according to the Location of Isolated Pure Blowout Fractures. Arch Plast Surg 2012; 39: 204-208
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bratton EM, Durairaj VD. Orbital implants for fracture repair. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2011; 22: 400-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ploder O, Klug C, Voracek M. et al. A computer-based method for calculation of orbital floor fractures from coronal computed tomography scans. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59: 1437-1442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jaquiery C, Aeppli C, Cornelius P. et al. Reconstruction of orbital wall defects: critical review of 72 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 36: 193-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Morrison AD, Sanderson RC, Moos KF. The use of silastic as an orbital implant for reconstruction of orbital wall defects: review of 311 cases treated over 20 years. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1995; 53: 412-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schmidt BL, Lee C, Young DM. et al. Intraorbital squamous epithelial cyst: an unusual complication of Silastic implantation. J Craniofac Surg 1998; 9: 452-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee HB, Nunery WR. Orbital adherence syndrome secondary to titanium implant material. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 25: 33-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yun HK, Yi S, Joh SP. et al. Complications after open reduction of blow-out fracture using silicone sheet. J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc 2001; 2: 72-76
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Prowse SJ, Hold PM, Gilmour RF. et al. Orbital floor reconstruction: a case for silicone. A 12 year experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2010; 63: 1105-1109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar