| Literature DB >> 33850860 |
Jinguo Yu1, Jingkai Zhang1, Song Chen1, Qi Han1, Hua Yan1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared to isolated orbital wall fracture, combined orbital floor and medial wall fractures are more likely to be required surgical correction due to a higher possibility of complications. However, it remains a challenge to repair concomitant orbital fracture using a one-piece implant due to the complex anatomic structures of the orbit. Aiming to reduce surgical difficulties and enhance therapeutic effects, we repaired unilateral combined orbital floor and medial wall fractures using two separated modified titanium mesh plates in this study.Entities:
Keywords: Concomitant orbital fracture; inferior subciliary approach; titanium mesh plate; transcaruncular approach
Year: 2021 PMID: 33850860 PMCID: PMC8039696 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1On preoperative examination, severe enophthalmos was observed in the left eye (4.5 mm on Hertel’s exophthalmometry), and hypoglobus was also seen in the left eye (2.0 mm measured using the Bi Xiaoping method). Red line represents the normal eye position in horizontal direction as reference for correction.
Figure 2CT scan. (A) Preoperative coronal CT scan. Combined medial and inferior orbital fracture marked as red arrows was diagnosed in the left orbit, the orbital volume was enlarged, and intraorbital soft tissues had herniated into the paranasal sinus. (B) Preoperative three-dimensional CT reconstruction showing the large defect of the fracture delineated with red line. (C) Postoperative three-dimensional CT reconstruction showing the position of the two titanium mesh plates outlined by the red line in the orbit, and reconstruction of the new corner at the transition zone area between the orbital floor and the medial wall.
Patient demographic characteristics
| No. | Sex | Age | Fracture site | Left/right eye | Cause of injury | Preoperative evaluation (1 day before surgery) | TO | Period of follow-up | Postoperative evaluation (day of the last follow-up) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diplopia | OML | Hypoglobus | Enophthalmos | Diplopia | OML | Hypoglobus | Enophthalmos | ||||||||
| 1 | Male | 31 | FOF + FMW | Left | TA | − | − | 2.0 mm | 4.5 mm | 21 d | 9 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 2 | Male | 45 | FOF + FMW | Right | BI | − | − | 1.5 mm | 4.0 mm | 13 d | 8 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 3 | Female | 23 | FOF + FMW | Left | TA | − | − | 0 mm | 4.5 mm | 15 d | 7 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 4 | Male | 39 | FOF + FMW | Left | BIF | + | + | 0 mm | 6.0 mm | 20 d | 10 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1.5 mm |
| 5 | Male | 47 | FOF + FMW | Right | BI | − | − | 0 mm | 4.5 mm | 47 d | 11 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 6 | Male | 40 | FOF + FMW | Right | TA | − | − | 0 mm | 5.5 mm | 12 d | 7 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 7 | Female | 25 | FOF + FMW | Left | BI | − | − | 2.5 mm | 5.0 mm | 58 d | 9 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 8 | Male | 48 | FOF + FMW | Left | BIF | + | + | 0 mm | 6.5 mm | 13 d | 11 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 2.0 mm |
| 9 | Male | 27 | FOF + FMW | Right | TA | − | − | 2.0 mm | 4.0 mm | 19 d | 7 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 10 | Female | 42 | FOF + FMW | Left | TA | − | − | 0 mm | 4.5 mm | 16 d | 8 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 11 | Male | 39 | FOF + FMW | Left | BI | − | − | 0 mm | 5.0 mm | 42 d | 10 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1.5 mm |
| 12 | Male | 28 | FOF + FMW | Right | FH | − | − | 0 mm | 4.0 mm | 17 d | 12 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1.5 mm |
| 13 | Male | 34 | FOF + FMW | Left | TA | + | + | 0 mm | 3.5 mm | 22 d | 15 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 14 | Male | 21 | FOF + FMW | Right | BI | − | − | 0 mm | 4.5 mm | 12 d | 12 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 15 | Female | 52 | FOF + FMW | Right | OI | + | + | 0 mm | 6.0 mm | 63 d | 10 mo | + | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 16 | Male | 49 | FOF + FMW | Left | FH | − | − | 3.5mm | 3.5 mm | 35 d | 14 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 0 mm |
| 17 | Male | 35 | FOF + FMW | Left | FH | − | − | 0 mm | 6.5 mm | 27 d | 15 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 2.0 mm |
| 18 | Male | 41 | FOF + FMW | Left | OI | − | − | 0 mm | 4.0 mm | 14 d | 9 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 19 | Female | 63 | FOF + FMW | Right | TA | + | + | 0 mm | 4.5 mm | 9 d | 15 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 20 | Male | 29 | FOF + FMW | Left | OI | − | − | 2.0 mm | 4.5 mm | 15 d | 11 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
| 21 | Male | 32 | FOF + FMW | Right | BI | − | − | 0 mm | 5.0 mm | 19 d | 13 mo | − | − | 0 mm | 1 mm |
“+” means yes, and “−” means no. TA, traffic accident; BI, blunt injury; BIF, blast injury of fireworks; FH, falling at height; OI, occupational injury; OML, ocular motility limitation; TO, timing of operation; FOF, fracture of orbital floor; FMW, fracture of medial wall.
Figure 3In the 9-month postoperative follow-up, the enophthalmos and hypoglobus were completely resolved. Red line represents the normal eye position in horizontal direction as reference for correction.
Figure 4Postoperative coronal CT scan showing that the two titanium mesh plates were positioned well, and the “new” orbital floor and medial wall were symmetrical to that of the contralateral orbit. The red line represents the direction of the medial wall of orbit, while the green line represents that of the inferior orbital wall. The upper red arrow points out the position of the second titanium mesh plate in red line, and the lower red arrow points out the first one in green line.