R H Haug1, E Nuveen, T Bredbenner. 1. Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44109-1998, USA. RHaug@mhmc.mhnet.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objectives of this investigation were to assess the weight of the combined internal orbital contents, to evaluate the ability of common internal orbital reconstruction materials to resist loads, and to determine whether these materials provide enough load resistance to support the orbital contents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The combined exonerated internal orbital contents (globe, fat, extraocular musculature, neurovascular structures, lacrimal apparatus, and musculocutaneous lids) from 16 human orbits were weighed. Five each of 13 different internal orbital reconstruction materials (titanium mesh, bioresorbables, Marlex [CR Bard, Cranston, RI], Medpore [Porex Medical, College Park, GA], Silastic [Dow Coming, Midland, MI], dried calvarium) were evaluated for their ability to resist loads applied by Instron 85.11 mechanical testing device (Canton, MA) when used to reconstruct uniform orbital floor defects in synthetic skulls (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA). Yield load, yield displacement, maximum load, and displacement at maximum load were measured. A comparison was then made between orbital content weight and the load-resisting capabilities of the various materials. RESULTS: The weight of the combined internal orbital contents was 42.97+/-4.05 g (range, 37.80 to 51.03 g). All of the materials tested except Marlex mesh met or exceeded the requirements for support of the combined internal orbital contents. CONCLUSION: Except in the instance of complete loss of the orbital floor, all of the materials tested should provide adequate orbital support.
PURPOSE: The objectives of this investigation were to assess the weight of the combined internal orbital contents, to evaluate the ability of common internal orbital reconstruction materials to resist loads, and to determine whether these materials provide enough load resistance to support the orbital contents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The combined exonerated internal orbital contents (globe, fat, extraocular musculature, neurovascular structures, lacrimal apparatus, and musculocutaneous lids) from 16 human orbits were weighed. Five each of 13 different internal orbital reconstruction materials (titanium mesh, bioresorbables, Marlex [CR Bard, Cranston, RI], Medpore [Porex Medical, College Park, GA], Silastic [Dow Coming, Midland, MI], dried calvarium) were evaluated for their ability to resist loads applied by Instron 85.11 mechanical testing device (Canton, MA) when used to reconstruct uniform orbital floor defects in synthetic skulls (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA). Yield load, yield displacement, maximum load, and displacement at maximum load were measured. A comparison was then made between orbital content weight and the load-resisting capabilities of the various materials. RESULTS: The weight of the combined internal orbital contents was 42.97+/-4.05 g (range, 37.80 to 51.03 g). All of the materials tested except Marlex mesh met or exceeded the requirements for support of the combined internal orbital contents. CONCLUSION: Except in the instance of complete loss of the orbital floor, all of the materials tested should provide adequate orbital support.