Porous polyethylene implants in orbital floor reconstruction
Resource
J Formos Med Assoc,106,51-57.
Journal
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery
Pages
877-885
Date Issued
2007-01
Date
2007-01
Author(s)
Villarreal, Pedro M.
Monje, Florencio
Morillo, Antonio J.
Junquera, Luis M.
González, Cristina
Barbón, Juan J.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to present the authors' 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.