Prosthetic Reconstruction of Orbital Defects

Abstract

Orbital and craniomaxillofacial defects, in general, are best approached preoperatively by a multidisciplinary team with a clear reconstructive plan in place. Orbital defects result from a myriad of underlying diseases and injuries, and reconstruction after orbital evisceration, enucleation, or exenteration can pose a challenge to the reconstructive team. Reconstruction of orbital injuries with orbital implants and prostheses can lead to acceptable aesthetic outcomes, and the reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with current orbital implants and prostheses. Herein, the authors review terminology and classifications of orbital defects, different types of orbital implants, advantages and disadvantages of different orbital implant reconstructive options, types of orbital prostheses, and pros and cons of different prosthetic options.

Keywords

prosthetic - orbital implant - orbital defects

• References

• 1 Klimczak J, Helman S, Kadakia S. , et al. Prosthetics in facial reconstruction. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2018; 11 (01) 6-14
• 2 Kiratli H, Koc I. Orbital exenteration: institutional review of evolving trends in indications and rehabilitation techniques. Orbit 2017; 17: 1-8
• 3 Nassab RS, Thomas SS, Murray D. Orbital exenteration for advanced periorbital skin cancers: 20 years experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2007; 60 (10) 1103-1109
• 4 Sophie Yi JY, Dierks EJ, Over LM, Hauck MJ. Prosthetic reconstruction of the orbit/globe. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2012; 24 (04) 697-712
• 5 Kesting MR, Koerdt S, Rommel N. , et al. Classification of orbital exenteration and reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2017; 45 (04) 467-473
• 6 Cinar C, Arslan H, Bingol UA, Aydin Y, Cetinkale O. The new anatomical classification system for orbital exenteration defect. J Craniofac Surg 2017; 28 (07) 1687-1693
• 7 Su GW, Yen MT. Current trends in managing the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 20 (04) 274-280
• 8 Schellini S, El Dib R, Silva LRE, Farat JG, Zhang Y, Jorge EC. Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 11 (11) CD010293
• 9 Gibson MK, Forastiere AA. Multidisciplinary approaches in the management of advanced head and neck tumors: state of the art. Curr Opin Oncol 2004; 16 (03) 220-224
• 10 Joseph ST, Thankappan K, Mathew J, Vijayamohan M, Sharma M, Iyer S. Defect components and reconstructive options in composite orbitomaxillary defects with orbital exenteration. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014; 72 (09) 1869.e1-1869.e9
• 11 Pruthi G, Jain V, Rajendiran S, Jha R. Prosthetic rehabilitation after orbital exenteration: a case series. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014; 62 (05) 629-632
• 12 Hanasono MM, Lee JC, Yang JS, Skoracki RJ, Reece GP, Esmaeli B. An algorithmic approach to reconstructive surgery and prosthetic rehabilitation after orbital exenteration. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (01) 98-105
• 13 Federspil PA. Implant-retained craniofacial prostheses for facial defects. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 8: Doc03
• 14 Kiat-amnuay S, Jacob RF, Chambers MS. , et al. Clinical trial of chlorinated polyethylene for facial prosthetics. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23 (03) 263-270
• 15 Jain S, Jain P. Rehabilitation of orbital cavity after orbital exenteration using polymethyl methacrylate orbital prosthesis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 16 (01) 100-104
• 16 Voigt A, Christ S, Klein M. Experimental analysis of retention forces of different magnetic devices for bone-anchored auricular facial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 37 (07) 664-668
• 17 Art as Applied to Medicine. The Facial Prosthetics Clinic of Johns Hopkins University Web site. Available at: http://hopkinsmedicine.org/medart/Prosthetics.htm
• 18 Toljanic JA, Eckert SE, Roumanas E. , et al. Osseointegrated craniofacial implants in the rehabilitation of orbital defects: an update of a retrospective experience in the United States. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94 (02) 177-182