Study design: Retrospective comparative interventional series of all patients who had undergone orbital fracture repair by 2 senior orbital surgeons in a single tertiary trauma center from January 2005 to December 2014.
Objective: To compare the outcomes of different implants used for various types of orbital fractures.
Methods: Patients were evaluated by age, gender, etiology of fracture, clinical findings, type of fractures, and implant used. Main outcome measures included restoration of premorbid state without morbidity and complications including enophthalmos, diplopia, infraorbital hypoesthesia, and ocular motility restriction 1 year after fracture repair. Implant-related complications were collected for analysis.
Results: There were a total of 274 patients with 307 orbits reconstructed. Thirty-three (12.0%) patients sustained bilateral injuries; 58.0% (n = 178) of orbits had simple fractures (isolated orbital floor, medial wall, or combined floor and medial wall). The distribution of implants used were bioresorbable (n = 117, 38.1%) and prefabricated titanium plates (n = 98, 31.9%) depending upon the nature of fracture. Bioresorbables, titanium plate, and porous polyethylene were used significantly more than titanium mesh for simple fractures, and prefabricated anatomic titanium implants were used significantly more than the other implants for complex fractures. There was a statistically significant improvement in diplopia, enophthalmos, ocular motility, and infraorbital hypoesthesia (p-value < 0.001) 1 year following orbital fracture reconstruction.
Conclusions: When used appropriately, diverse alloplastic materials used in orbital fracture repair tailored to the indication aid orbital reconstruction outcomes with each material having its own unique characteristics.
Keywords: bioresorbable implants; blow out fractures; orbital fractures; orbital implants; orbital reconstruction; orbitofacial fractures; prefabricated anatomical titanium implants.
© The Author(s) 2020.