| Literature DB >> 26604678 |
Jennings R Boyette1, John D Pemberton2, Juliana Bonilla-Velez1.
Abstract
Many specialists encounter and treat orbital fractures. The management of these fractures is often challenging due to the impact that they can have on vision. Acute treatment involves a thorough clinical examination and management of concomitant ocular injuries. The clinical and radiographic findings for each individual patient must then be analyzed for the need for surgical intervention. Deformity and vision impairment can occur from these injuries, and while surgery is intended to prevent these problems, it can also create them. Therefore, surgical approach and implant selection should be carefully considered. Accurate anatomic reconstruction requires complete assessment of fracture margins and proper implant contouring and positioning. The implementation of new technologies for implant shaping and intraoperative assessment of reconstruction will hopefully lead to improved patient outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: orbital blowout; orbital floor; orbital fracture
Year: 2015 PMID: 26604678 PMCID: PMC4655944 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S80463
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Coronal CT imaging of a pediatric patient with a left orbital floor greenstick fracture.
Note: The entrapped inferior rectus located within the maxillary sinus.
Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.
Figure 2Example of an intraoperative CT scan used to evaluate placement of an orbital floor titanium implant.
Note: Coronal and sagittal reconstructions.
Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.
Figure 3Endoscopic view of the orbital floor from the maxillary sinus.
Notes: A porous polyethylene implant placed via an eyelid approach is assessed to ensure no herniated orbital contents are remaining in the sinus and that the implant is resting on bony ledges.
Advantages and disadvantages of the most common implants used for orbital reconstruction
| Implant material | Advantages | Disadvantages | Indications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Autograft | |||
| Bone | Most biocompatible | Donor site morbidity | Fractures in children <7 years of age |
| Good strength | Increases operative time and cost | ||
| No sharp edges | Bone resorption | ||
| Radio-opaque | Difficult to adjust shape | ||
| Cartilage | Most biocompatible | Minimal donor site morbidity | Small fractures |
| No sharp edges | Increases operative time and cost | ||
| Prone to resorption | Poor structural support | ||
| Difficult to adjust shape | |||
| Not radio-opaque | |||
| Removes option for future nasal surgery | |||
| Alloplast | |||
| Titanium mesh | Biocompatible | Sharp edges and gaps allow tissue ingrowth making removal difficult | Large orbital floor defects |
| Good strength for large defects | |||
| Malleable to be countoured to the defect | Cost | ||
| Radio-opaque | Isolated reports of infection | ||
| Can prefabricate PSI | |||
| Porous polyethylene | Biocompatible | Cost | Defects with good edges to support |
| Good strength for large defects | Does not allow egress of fluid from the orbit | implant | |
| Can prefabricate PSI | |||
| Can be countoured to the defect | |||
| Resorbable sheeting | Biocompatible | Cost | Can be used in small gaps <2.5 cm2 with stable medial and lateral borders |
| Pliable and can be contoured to the defect | Concern for long-term stability and support | ||
| Resorbable | Not radio-opaque | Fractures in children | |
| Patient-specific implant | Biocompatible | Requires an intact contralateral orbit | Extensive complex orbital defects |
| Digitally designed by the surgeon based on the contralateral orbit | Time required to obtain the implant | ||
| More stable than manually bent titanium | Greater stiffness allows less intraoperative corrections | ||
| Radio-opaque | |||
| Intraoperative navigation with CT guidance | Requires surgeon familiarity with software Cost |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; PSI, patient-specific implant.