Comparison of surgical outcomes of large orbital fractures reconstructed with porous polyethylene channel and porous polyethylene titan barrier implants

Chang Yeom Kim, Byung Jin Jeong, Sang Yeul Lee, Jin Sook Yoon

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the postoperative outcomes of large orbital fractures repaired with porous polyethylene (PP) channel implants (PPCIs) and PP titan barrier implants (PPTBs). Methods: Medical records of 42 patients who underwent surgical reconstruction for a large orbital fracture with either PPCI or PPTB were reviewed retrospectively. The degree of diplopia, determined with a binocular single vision test, and enophthalmos, measured by a Hertel exophthalmometer, was compared between 2 implant groups. Orbital volumes were calculated using CT scans and the measuring tool. Results: Of the 42 patients examined, 16 received PPCI and 26 received PPTB. No significant difference in the degree of diplopia was observed between the 2 implant groups before surgery, and 1 and 3 months after surgery (p = 0.256, 0.408, and 0.432, respectively). Preoperative average enophthalmos measuring 1.28 mm and 1.04 mm was successfully corrected to 0.19 mm and 0.25 mm 3 months after reconstruction with PPCI and PPTB, respectively. The fractured orbit volumes and nonfractured contralateral orbit volumes were 24.96 ± 2.32 cm and 23.18 ± 1.73 cm in the PPCI group, and 26.80 ± 2.10 cm and 24.13 ± 2.28 cm in the PPTB group, respectively. After surgery, the fractured orbit volumes significantly decreased to 23.39 ± 2.82 cm in the PPCI group and to 23.53 ± 1.74 cm in the PPTB group; these values were not significantly different from that of the nonfractured orbit (p = 0.681 for PPCI and 0.204 for PPTB). Conclusions: Porous polyethylene channel implant and PPTB are both effective implant materials for the repair of large orbital fractures; however, PPTB has the additional benefit of not requiring screw fixation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)176-180
Number of pages5
JournalOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume28
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 May 1

Fingerprint

Saturn
Orbital Fractures
Polyethylene
Orbit
Enophthalmos
Diplopia
Vision Tests
Binocular Vision
Medical Records

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

@article{eda6b0e339b64859b0e280259193c838,
title = "Comparison of surgical outcomes of large orbital fractures reconstructed with porous polyethylene channel and porous polyethylene titan barrier implants",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the postoperative outcomes of large orbital fractures repaired with porous polyethylene (PP) channel implants (PPCIs) and PP titan barrier implants (PPTBs). Methods: Medical records of 42 patients who underwent surgical reconstruction for a large orbital fracture with either PPCI or PPTB were reviewed retrospectively. The degree of diplopia, determined with a binocular single vision test, and enophthalmos, measured by a Hertel exophthalmometer, was compared between 2 implant groups. Orbital volumes were calculated using CT scans and the measuring tool. Results: Of the 42 patients examined, 16 received PPCI and 26 received PPTB. No significant difference in the degree of diplopia was observed between the 2 implant groups before surgery, and 1 and 3 months after surgery (p = 0.256, 0.408, and 0.432, respectively). Preoperative average enophthalmos measuring 1.28 mm and 1.04 mm was successfully corrected to 0.19 mm and 0.25 mm 3 months after reconstruction with PPCI and PPTB, respectively. The fractured orbit volumes and nonfractured contralateral orbit volumes were 24.96 ± 2.32 cm and 23.18 ± 1.73 cm in the PPCI group, and 26.80 ± 2.10 cm and 24.13 ± 2.28 cm in the PPTB group, respectively. After surgery, the fractured orbit volumes significantly decreased to 23.39 ± 2.82 cm in the PPCI group and to 23.53 ± 1.74 cm in the PPTB group; these values were not significantly different from that of the nonfractured orbit (p = 0.681 for PPCI and 0.204 for PPTB). Conclusions: Porous polyethylene channel implant and PPTB are both effective implant materials for the repair of large orbital fractures; however, PPTB has the additional benefit of not requiring screw fixation.",
author = "Kim, {Chang Yeom} and Jeong, {Byung Jin} and Lee, {Sang Yeul} and Yoon, {Jin Sook}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182467c4a",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "176--180",
journal = "Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0740-9303",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

Comparison of surgical outcomes of large orbital fractures reconstructed with porous polyethylene channel and porous polyethylene titan barrier implants. / Kim, Chang Yeom; Jeong, Byung Jin; Lee, Sang Yeul; Yoon, Jin Sook.

In: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 28, No. 3, 01.05.2012, p. 176-180.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of surgical outcomes of large orbital fractures reconstructed with porous polyethylene channel and porous polyethylene titan barrier implants

AU - Kim, Chang Yeom

AU - Jeong, Byung Jin

AU - Lee, Sang Yeul

AU - Yoon, Jin Sook

PY - 2012/5/1

Y1 - 2012/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the postoperative outcomes of large orbital fractures repaired with porous polyethylene (PP) channel implants (PPCIs) and PP titan barrier implants (PPTBs). Methods: Medical records of 42 patients who underwent surgical reconstruction for a large orbital fracture with either PPCI or PPTB were reviewed retrospectively. The degree of diplopia, determined with a binocular single vision test, and enophthalmos, measured by a Hertel exophthalmometer, was compared between 2 implant groups. Orbital volumes were calculated using CT scans and the measuring tool. Results: Of the 42 patients examined, 16 received PPCI and 26 received PPTB. No significant difference in the degree of diplopia was observed between the 2 implant groups before surgery, and 1 and 3 months after surgery (p = 0.256, 0.408, and 0.432, respectively). Preoperative average enophthalmos measuring 1.28 mm and 1.04 mm was successfully corrected to 0.19 mm and 0.25 mm 3 months after reconstruction with PPCI and PPTB, respectively. The fractured orbit volumes and nonfractured contralateral orbit volumes were 24.96 ± 2.32 cm and 23.18 ± 1.73 cm in the PPCI group, and 26.80 ± 2.10 cm and 24.13 ± 2.28 cm in the PPTB group, respectively. After surgery, the fractured orbit volumes significantly decreased to 23.39 ± 2.82 cm in the PPCI group and to 23.53 ± 1.74 cm in the PPTB group; these values were not significantly different from that of the nonfractured orbit (p = 0.681 for PPCI and 0.204 for PPTB). Conclusions: Porous polyethylene channel implant and PPTB are both effective implant materials for the repair of large orbital fractures; however, PPTB has the additional benefit of not requiring screw fixation.

AB - Purpose: To compare the postoperative outcomes of large orbital fractures repaired with porous polyethylene (PP) channel implants (PPCIs) and PP titan barrier implants (PPTBs). Methods: Medical records of 42 patients who underwent surgical reconstruction for a large orbital fracture with either PPCI or PPTB were reviewed retrospectively. The degree of diplopia, determined with a binocular single vision test, and enophthalmos, measured by a Hertel exophthalmometer, was compared between 2 implant groups. Orbital volumes were calculated using CT scans and the measuring tool. Results: Of the 42 patients examined, 16 received PPCI and 26 received PPTB. No significant difference in the degree of diplopia was observed between the 2 implant groups before surgery, and 1 and 3 months after surgery (p = 0.256, 0.408, and 0.432, respectively). Preoperative average enophthalmos measuring 1.28 mm and 1.04 mm was successfully corrected to 0.19 mm and 0.25 mm 3 months after reconstruction with PPCI and PPTB, respectively. The fractured orbit volumes and nonfractured contralateral orbit volumes were 24.96 ± 2.32 cm and 23.18 ± 1.73 cm in the PPCI group, and 26.80 ± 2.10 cm and 24.13 ± 2.28 cm in the PPTB group, respectively. After surgery, the fractured orbit volumes significantly decreased to 23.39 ± 2.82 cm in the PPCI group and to 23.53 ± 1.74 cm in the PPTB group; these values were not significantly different from that of the nonfractured orbit (p = 0.681 for PPCI and 0.204 for PPTB). Conclusions: Porous polyethylene channel implant and PPTB are both effective implant materials for the repair of large orbital fractures; however, PPTB has the additional benefit of not requiring screw fixation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861337157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861337157&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182467c4a

DO - 10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182467c4a

M3 - Review article

C2 - 22460672

AN - SCOPUS:84861337157

VL - 28

SP - 176

EP - 180

JO - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0740-9303

IS - 3

ER -