Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction

The purpose of this article is to present the authorsʼ experience with the use of porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets for orbital floor reconstruction. Thirty-two patients with orbital floor fractures were treated with porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets. Sixteen cases corresponded to orbitozygoma...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963) 2002-03, Vol.109 (3), p.877-885
Hauptverfasser: Villarreal, Pedro M, Monje, Florencio, Morillo, Antonio J, Junquera, Luis M, González, Cristina, Barbón, Juan J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 885
container_issue 3
container_start_page 877
container_title Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)
container_volume 109
creator Villarreal, Pedro M
Monje, Florencio
Morillo, Antonio J
Junquera, Luis M
González, Cristina
Barbón, Juan J
description The purpose of this article is to present the authorsʼ experience with the use of porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets for orbital floor reconstruction. Thirty-two patients with orbital floor fractures were treated with porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets. Sixteen cases corresponded to orbitozygomatic fractures, 11 cases corresponded to pure orbital floor fractures, and five corresponded to panfacial fractures. The subciliary approach was used in 15 patients and the transconjunctival approach in nine; another three patients were operated on through a preexisting eyebrow wound, two were operated on with a subtarsal approach, two were operated on through an eyebrow extension of a facial wound, and one patient was operated on through the facial wound. Intraoperatively, all patients received a prophylactic dose of intravenous antibiotics. Postoperatively, 24 patients received amoxicillin clavulanate for 5 to 7 days, two patients received clindamycin, and six patients received no antibiotics. Enophthalmos was corrected in 15 of 24 patients (62.5 percent), and hypoglobus in nine of 11 (82 percent). Diplopia was resolved in 25 of 28 patients (89.3 percent) with preoperative impairment. Extrinsic eye movement impairment was resolved in 25 of 27 patients (92.6 percent). A preoperative visual acuity deficit was present in four patients (12.5 percent) and was resolved in one (from 20/100 to 20/20). Visual acuity improved in one patient (from 20/60 to 20/30). In the other two patients, visual acuity remained altered (from 20/30 to 20/30). One patient (3.1 percent) suffered blindness induced by surgery. Nine of 26 patients (34.6 percent) had residual infraorbital nerve hypesthesia and five (19.2 percent) had residual paresthesias. Postoperatively, epiphora was present in six patients (18.8 percent) and ectropion in five (15.6 percent). Although there was no statistical significance between the surgical approach and the presence of epiphora (p = 0.211) and ectropion (p = 0.422), patients who were treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered reduced ectropion (0 percent) compared with patients treated using the subciliary approach (20 percent). However, patients treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered increased epiphora (22.2 percent) compared with those treated with the subciliary approach (13.3 percent). There were four cases (12.5 percent) of postoperative facial infections. Two of these cases were resolved with systemic antibiotics, one was re
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00006534-200203000-00007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71509126</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71509126</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3567-41c115f0fbda89c2502a9a88729c0815dbf7dc77e4ff187e0698bb4d182196863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UcFOwzAMjRCIjcEvoJ64Fey0aVKJC5oYTJq0CcE5atNUK6TNSFJN-3s6NuCEL5af3rOfngmJEG4Rcn4HQ2UsSWMKQCEZpngP8RMyRkbzOKUpPSVjgITGCIyOyIX37wDIk4ydkxGiEKkAGJP7lXW299HKmp0O653RnY7m7cYUXfBR00VLVzahMNHMWOuiF61s54PrVWhsd0nO6sJ4fXXsE_I2e3ydPseL5dN8-rCIVcIyHqeoEFkNdVkVIleUAS3yQghOcwUCWVXWvFKc67SuUXANWS7KMq1QUMwzkSUTcnPYu3H2s9c-yLbxSpvBpB7MS44McqR7ojgQlbPeO13LjWvawu0kgtwnJ3-Sk7_JfUN8kF4fb_Rlq6s_4TGqgZAeCFtrgnb-w_Rb7eRaFyas5X8fSb4AGTh3qQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71509126</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Villarreal, Pedro M ; Monje, Florencio ; Morillo, Antonio J ; Junquera, Luis M ; González, Cristina ; Barbón, Juan J</creator><creatorcontrib>Villarreal, Pedro M ; Monje, Florencio ; Morillo, Antonio J ; Junquera, Luis M ; González, Cristina ; Barbón, Juan J</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this article is to present the authorsʼ experience with the use of porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets for orbital floor reconstruction. Thirty-two patients with orbital floor fractures were treated with porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets. Sixteen cases corresponded to orbitozygomatic fractures, 11 cases corresponded to pure orbital floor fractures, and five corresponded to panfacial fractures. The subciliary approach was used in 15 patients and the transconjunctival approach in nine; another three patients were operated on through a preexisting eyebrow wound, two were operated on with a subtarsal approach, two were operated on through an eyebrow extension of a facial wound, and one patient was operated on through the facial wound. Intraoperatively, all patients received a prophylactic dose of intravenous antibiotics. Postoperatively, 24 patients received amoxicillin clavulanate for 5 to 7 days, two patients received clindamycin, and six patients received no antibiotics. Enophthalmos was corrected in 15 of 24 patients (62.5 percent), and hypoglobus in nine of 11 (82 percent). Diplopia was resolved in 25 of 28 patients (89.3 percent) with preoperative impairment. Extrinsic eye movement impairment was resolved in 25 of 27 patients (92.6 percent). A preoperative visual acuity deficit was present in four patients (12.5 percent) and was resolved in one (from 20/100 to 20/20). Visual acuity improved in one patient (from 20/60 to 20/30). In the other two patients, visual acuity remained altered (from 20/30 to 20/30). One patient (3.1 percent) suffered blindness induced by surgery. Nine of 26 patients (34.6 percent) had residual infraorbital nerve hypesthesia and five (19.2 percent) had residual paresthesias. Postoperatively, epiphora was present in six patients (18.8 percent) and ectropion in five (15.6 percent). Although there was no statistical significance between the surgical approach and the presence of epiphora (p = 0.211) and ectropion (p = 0.422), patients who were treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered reduced ectropion (0 percent) compared with patients treated using the subciliary approach (20 percent). However, patients treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered increased epiphora (22.2 percent) compared with those treated with the subciliary approach (13.3 percent). There were four cases (12.5 percent) of postoperative facial infections. Two of these cases were resolved with systemic antibiotics, one was resolved with bone sequestrum resection, and one patient needed removal of the implant. Orbital infections were related in all cases to titanium osteosynthesis miniplates or skull bone graft. When comparing patients who were treated with and without antibiotics, no statistical differences (p = 0.958) were found relative to the presence of infections. Correction of hypoglobus is technically easier than enophthalmos, because enophthalmic correction requires a wide, deep subperiosteal dissection and implant positioning, posterior to the equator of the globe, with the inherent risk of orbital apex injury. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 109877, 2002.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-1052</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1529-4242</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00006534-200203000-00007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11884800</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of Plastic Surgeons</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Biocompatible Materials ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Orbital Fractures - surgery ; Orbital Implants ; Polyethylenes ; Prosthesis Design ; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><ispartof>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2002-03, Vol.109 (3), p.877-885</ispartof><rights>2002American Society of Plastic Surgeons</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3567-41c115f0fbda89c2502a9a88729c0815dbf7dc77e4ff187e0698bb4d182196863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3567-41c115f0fbda89c2502a9a88729c0815dbf7dc77e4ff187e0698bb4d182196863</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11884800$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Villarreal, Pedro M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monje, Florencio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morillo, Antonio J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Junquera, Luis M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbón, Juan J</creatorcontrib><title>Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction</title><title>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</title><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><description>The purpose of this article is to present the authorsʼ experience with the use of porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets for orbital floor reconstruction. Thirty-two patients with orbital floor fractures were treated with porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets. Sixteen cases corresponded to orbitozygomatic fractures, 11 cases corresponded to pure orbital floor fractures, and five corresponded to panfacial fractures. The subciliary approach was used in 15 patients and the transconjunctival approach in nine; another three patients were operated on through a preexisting eyebrow wound, two were operated on with a subtarsal approach, two were operated on through an eyebrow extension of a facial wound, and one patient was operated on through the facial wound. Intraoperatively, all patients received a prophylactic dose of intravenous antibiotics. Postoperatively, 24 patients received amoxicillin clavulanate for 5 to 7 days, two patients received clindamycin, and six patients received no antibiotics. Enophthalmos was corrected in 15 of 24 patients (62.5 percent), and hypoglobus in nine of 11 (82 percent). Diplopia was resolved in 25 of 28 patients (89.3 percent) with preoperative impairment. Extrinsic eye movement impairment was resolved in 25 of 27 patients (92.6 percent). A preoperative visual acuity deficit was present in four patients (12.5 percent) and was resolved in one (from 20/100 to 20/20). Visual acuity improved in one patient (from 20/60 to 20/30). In the other two patients, visual acuity remained altered (from 20/30 to 20/30). One patient (3.1 percent) suffered blindness induced by surgery. Nine of 26 patients (34.6 percent) had residual infraorbital nerve hypesthesia and five (19.2 percent) had residual paresthesias. Postoperatively, epiphora was present in six patients (18.8 percent) and ectropion in five (15.6 percent). Although there was no statistical significance between the surgical approach and the presence of epiphora (p = 0.211) and ectropion (p = 0.422), patients who were treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered reduced ectropion (0 percent) compared with patients treated using the subciliary approach (20 percent). However, patients treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered increased epiphora (22.2 percent) compared with those treated with the subciliary approach (13.3 percent). There were four cases (12.5 percent) of postoperative facial infections. Two of these cases were resolved with systemic antibiotics, one was resolved with bone sequestrum resection, and one patient needed removal of the implant. Orbital infections were related in all cases to titanium osteosynthesis miniplates or skull bone graft. When comparing patients who were treated with and without antibiotics, no statistical differences (p = 0.958) were found relative to the presence of infections. Correction of hypoglobus is technically easier than enophthalmos, because enophthalmic correction requires a wide, deep subperiosteal dissection and implant positioning, posterior to the equator of the globe, with the inherent risk of orbital apex injury. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 109877, 2002.)</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biocompatible Materials</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Orbital Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Orbital Implants</subject><subject>Polyethylenes</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><issn>0032-1052</issn><issn>1529-4242</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UcFOwzAMjRCIjcEvoJ64Fey0aVKJC5oYTJq0CcE5atNUK6TNSFJN-3s6NuCEL5af3rOfngmJEG4Rcn4HQ2UsSWMKQCEZpngP8RMyRkbzOKUpPSVjgITGCIyOyIX37wDIk4ydkxGiEKkAGJP7lXW299HKmp0O653RnY7m7cYUXfBR00VLVzahMNHMWOuiF61s54PrVWhsd0nO6sJ4fXXsE_I2e3ydPseL5dN8-rCIVcIyHqeoEFkNdVkVIleUAS3yQghOcwUCWVXWvFKc67SuUXANWS7KMq1QUMwzkSUTcnPYu3H2s9c-yLbxSpvBpB7MS44McqR7ojgQlbPeO13LjWvawu0kgtwnJ3-Sk7_JfUN8kF4fb_Rlq6s_4TGqgZAeCFtrgnb-w_Rb7eRaFyas5X8fSb4AGTh3qQ</recordid><startdate>200203</startdate><enddate>200203</enddate><creator>Villarreal, Pedro M</creator><creator>Monje, Florencio</creator><creator>Morillo, Antonio J</creator><creator>Junquera, Luis M</creator><creator>González, Cristina</creator><creator>Barbón, Juan J</creator><general>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200203</creationdate><title>Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction</title><author>Villarreal, Pedro M ; Monje, Florencio ; Morillo, Antonio J ; Junquera, Luis M ; González, Cristina ; Barbón, Juan J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3567-41c115f0fbda89c2502a9a88729c0815dbf7dc77e4ff187e0698bb4d182196863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biocompatible Materials</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Orbital Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Orbital Implants</topic><topic>Polyethylenes</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Villarreal, Pedro M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monje, Florencio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morillo, Antonio J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Junquera, Luis M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>González, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbón, Juan J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Villarreal, Pedro M</au><au>Monje, Florencio</au><au>Morillo, Antonio J</au><au>Junquera, Luis M</au><au>González, Cristina</au><au>Barbón, Juan J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction</atitle><jtitle>Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963)</jtitle><addtitle>Plast Reconstr Surg</addtitle><date>2002-03</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>109</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>877</spage><epage>885</epage><pages>877-885</pages><issn>0032-1052</issn><eissn>1529-4242</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this article is to present the authorsʼ experience with the use of porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets for orbital floor reconstruction. Thirty-two patients with orbital floor fractures were treated with porous polyethylene ultrathin sheets. Sixteen cases corresponded to orbitozygomatic fractures, 11 cases corresponded to pure orbital floor fractures, and five corresponded to panfacial fractures. The subciliary approach was used in 15 patients and the transconjunctival approach in nine; another three patients were operated on through a preexisting eyebrow wound, two were operated on with a subtarsal approach, two were operated on through an eyebrow extension of a facial wound, and one patient was operated on through the facial wound. Intraoperatively, all patients received a prophylactic dose of intravenous antibiotics. Postoperatively, 24 patients received amoxicillin clavulanate for 5 to 7 days, two patients received clindamycin, and six patients received no antibiotics. Enophthalmos was corrected in 15 of 24 patients (62.5 percent), and hypoglobus in nine of 11 (82 percent). Diplopia was resolved in 25 of 28 patients (89.3 percent) with preoperative impairment. Extrinsic eye movement impairment was resolved in 25 of 27 patients (92.6 percent). A preoperative visual acuity deficit was present in four patients (12.5 percent) and was resolved in one (from 20/100 to 20/20). Visual acuity improved in one patient (from 20/60 to 20/30). In the other two patients, visual acuity remained altered (from 20/30 to 20/30). One patient (3.1 percent) suffered blindness induced by surgery. Nine of 26 patients (34.6 percent) had residual infraorbital nerve hypesthesia and five (19.2 percent) had residual paresthesias. Postoperatively, epiphora was present in six patients (18.8 percent) and ectropion in five (15.6 percent). Although there was no statistical significance between the surgical approach and the presence of epiphora (p = 0.211) and ectropion (p = 0.422), patients who were treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered reduced ectropion (0 percent) compared with patients treated using the subciliary approach (20 percent). However, patients treated using the transconjunctival approach suffered increased epiphora (22.2 percent) compared with those treated with the subciliary approach (13.3 percent). There were four cases (12.5 percent) of postoperative facial infections. Two of these cases were resolved with systemic antibiotics, one was resolved with bone sequestrum resection, and one patient needed removal of the implant. Orbital infections were related in all cases to titanium osteosynthesis miniplates or skull bone graft. When comparing patients who were treated with and without antibiotics, no statistical differences (p = 0.958) were found relative to the presence of infections. Correction of hypoglobus is technically easier than enophthalmos, because enophthalmic correction requires a wide, deep subperiosteal dissection and implant positioning, posterior to the equator of the globe, with the inherent risk of orbital apex injury. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 109877, 2002.)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of Plastic Surgeons</pub><pmid>11884800</pmid><doi>10.1097/00006534-200203000-00007</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0032-1052
ispartof Plastic and reconstructive surgery (1963), 2002-03, Vol.109 (3), p.877-885
issn 0032-1052
1529-4242
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71509126
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Biocompatible Materials
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Orbital Fractures - surgery
Orbital Implants
Polyethylenes
Prosthesis Design
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures - methods
title Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-30T22%3A21%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Porous%20Polyethylene%20Implants%20in%20Orbital%20Floor%20Reconstruction&rft.jtitle=Plastic%20and%20reconstructive%20surgery%20(1963)&rft.au=Villarreal,%20Pedro%20M&rft.date=2002-03&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=877&rft.epage=885&rft.pages=877-885&rft.issn=0032-1052&rft.eissn=1529-4242&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00006534-200203000-00007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71509126%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71509126&rft_id=info:pmid/11884800&rfr_iscdi=true