Dov Hersh1, Frank J Martin, Neil Rowe. 1. Department of Pediatric Ophthalmology Childrens Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the use of Silastic and banked fascia lata in pediatric frontalis suspension surgery for functional success, ptosis recurrence, and infection and granuloma rates. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed the medical records of 72 patients who underwent 131 frontalis suspension operations using either Silastic or banked fascia lata during the past 12 years at Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Functional success rates for primary frontalis suspension procedures were not significantly different for banked fascia lata and Silastic (60% versus 67.2%, respectively; P = .4666). Infection and granuloma rates also were not significantly different (7.1% for banked fascia lata versus 15.2% for Silastic; P = .1381). There was, however, a statistically significant difference between the two materials in ptosis recurrence (35.3% for banked fascia lata versus 13% for Silastic; P = .0062). CONCLUSIONS: Silastic was significantly better than banked fascia lata in terms of ptosis recurrence. Both materials were comparable in terms of functional success after one procedure and in infection and granuloma rates. Given the conflicting evidence presented in the literature, large prospective studies are needed to compare the use of the most common synthetic materials with banked fascia lata in pediatric frontalis suspension.
PURPOSE: To compare the use of Silastic and banked fascia lata in pediatric frontalis suspension surgery for functional success, ptosis recurrence, and infection and granuloma rates. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed the medical records of 72 patients who underwent 131 frontalis suspension operations using either Silastic or banked fascia lata during the past 12 years at Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Functional success rates for primary frontalis suspension procedures were not significantly different for banked fascia lata and Silastic (60% versus 67.2%, respectively; P = .4666). Infection and granuloma rates also were not significantly different (7.1% for banked fascia lata versus 15.2% for Silastic; P = .1381). There was, however, a statistically significant difference between the two materials in ptosis recurrence (35.3% for banked fascia lata versus 13% for Silastic; P = .0062). CONCLUSIONS: Silastic was significantly better than banked fascia lata in terms of ptosis recurrence. Both materials were comparable in terms of functional success after one procedure and in infection and granuloma rates. Given the conflicting evidence presented in the literature, large prospective studies are needed to compare the use of the most common synthetic materials with banked fascia lata in pediatric frontalis suspension.