Materials used for reconstruction after orbital floor fracture

Yash J. Avashia, Ananth Sastry, Kenneth L. Fan, Haaris S. Mir, Seth Thaller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Advances in biotechnology continue to introduce new materials for reconstruction of orbital floor fractures. Which material is best fit for orbital floor reconstruction has been a controversial topic. Individual surgeon preferences have been supported by inconsistent inconclusive data. The purpose of this study was to assess and analyze published evidence supporting various materials used for orbital floor reconstruction and to develop a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. A systematic literature review was performed from which 48 studies were selected after primary and secondary screening based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. This cumulatively included 3475 separate orbital floor reconstructions. Results revealed risk and benefit profiles for all materials. Autologous calvarial bone grafts, porous polyethylene, and polydioxanone (PDS) were most widely used for orbital floor reconstruction. Increased infection rates were reported with polyglactin 910/PDS composites and silastic rubber. Ocular motility was reduced most with lyophilized dura and PDS. Preoperative and postoperative rates for diplopia and enophthalmos varied among the materials. In conclusion, our results revealed continued inadequate evidence to exclusively support the use of any one biomaterial/implant for orbital floor reconstruction. Results have served to create a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. Our authors propose certain parameters for future studies seeking to demonstrate a comparison between 2 or more materials for orbital floor reconstruction.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Craniofacial Surgery
Volume23
Issue number7 SUPPL.1
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2012

Fingerprint

Orbital Fractures
Polydioxanone
Orbital Implants
Enophthalmos
Polyglactin 910
Diplopia
Rubber
Biocompatible Materials
Polyethylene
Biotechnology
Transplants
Bone and Bones
Infection

Keywords

  • biomaterials
  • implants
  • orbital floor fractures
  • Orbital floor reconstruction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Materials used for reconstruction after orbital floor fracture. / Avashia, Yash J.; Sastry, Ananth; Fan, Kenneth L.; Mir, Haaris S.; Thaller, Seth.

In: Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Vol. 23, No. 7 SUPPL.1, 01.11.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Avashia, Yash J. ; Sastry, Ananth ; Fan, Kenneth L. ; Mir, Haaris S. ; Thaller, Seth. / Materials used for reconstruction after orbital floor fracture. In: Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 23, No. 7 SUPPL.1.
@article{52b44d08a98341a483f9683412784848,
title = "Materials used for reconstruction after orbital floor fracture",
abstract = "Advances in biotechnology continue to introduce new materials for reconstruction of orbital floor fractures. Which material is best fit for orbital floor reconstruction has been a controversial topic. Individual surgeon preferences have been supported by inconsistent inconclusive data. The purpose of this study was to assess and analyze published evidence supporting various materials used for orbital floor reconstruction and to develop a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. A systematic literature review was performed from which 48 studies were selected after primary and secondary screening based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. This cumulatively included 3475 separate orbital floor reconstructions. Results revealed risk and benefit profiles for all materials. Autologous calvarial bone grafts, porous polyethylene, and polydioxanone (PDS) were most widely used for orbital floor reconstruction. Increased infection rates were reported with polyglactin 910/PDS composites and silastic rubber. Ocular motility was reduced most with lyophilized dura and PDS. Preoperative and postoperative rates for diplopia and enophthalmos varied among the materials. In conclusion, our results revealed continued inadequate evidence to exclusively support the use of any one biomaterial/implant for orbital floor reconstruction. Results have served to create a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. Our authors propose certain parameters for future studies seeking to demonstrate a comparison between 2 or more materials for orbital floor reconstruction.",
keywords = "biomaterials, implants, orbital floor fractures, Orbital floor reconstruction",
author = "Avashia, {Yash J.} and Ananth Sastry and Fan, {Kenneth L.} and Mir, {Haaris S.} and Seth Thaller",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825aada1",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
journal = "Journal of Craniofacial Surgery",
issn = "1049-2275",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7 SUPPL.1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Materials used for reconstruction after orbital floor fracture

AU - Avashia, Yash J.

AU - Sastry, Ananth

AU - Fan, Kenneth L.

AU - Mir, Haaris S.

AU - Thaller, Seth

PY - 2012/11/1

Y1 - 2012/11/1

N2 - Advances in biotechnology continue to introduce new materials for reconstruction of orbital floor fractures. Which material is best fit for orbital floor reconstruction has been a controversial topic. Individual surgeon preferences have been supported by inconsistent inconclusive data. The purpose of this study was to assess and analyze published evidence supporting various materials used for orbital floor reconstruction and to develop a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. A systematic literature review was performed from which 48 studies were selected after primary and secondary screening based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. This cumulatively included 3475 separate orbital floor reconstructions. Results revealed risk and benefit profiles for all materials. Autologous calvarial bone grafts, porous polyethylene, and polydioxanone (PDS) were most widely used for orbital floor reconstruction. Increased infection rates were reported with polyglactin 910/PDS composites and silastic rubber. Ocular motility was reduced most with lyophilized dura and PDS. Preoperative and postoperative rates for diplopia and enophthalmos varied among the materials. In conclusion, our results revealed continued inadequate evidence to exclusively support the use of any one biomaterial/implant for orbital floor reconstruction. Results have served to create a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. Our authors propose certain parameters for future studies seeking to demonstrate a comparison between 2 or more materials for orbital floor reconstruction.

AB - Advances in biotechnology continue to introduce new materials for reconstruction of orbital floor fractures. Which material is best fit for orbital floor reconstruction has been a controversial topic. Individual surgeon preferences have been supported by inconsistent inconclusive data. The purpose of this study was to assess and analyze published evidence supporting various materials used for orbital floor reconstruction and to develop a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. A systematic literature review was performed from which 48 studies were selected after primary and secondary screening based on set inclusion and exclusion criteria. This cumulatively included 3475 separate orbital floor reconstructions. Results revealed risk and benefit profiles for all materials. Autologous calvarial bone grafts, porous polyethylene, and polydioxanone (PDS) were most widely used for orbital floor reconstruction. Increased infection rates were reported with polyglactin 910/PDS composites and silastic rubber. Ocular motility was reduced most with lyophilized dura and PDS. Preoperative and postoperative rates for diplopia and enophthalmos varied among the materials. In conclusion, our results revealed continued inadequate evidence to exclusively support the use of any one biomaterial/implant for orbital floor reconstruction. Results have served to create a decision-making algorithm for clinical application. Our authors propose certain parameters for future studies seeking to demonstrate a comparison between 2 or more materials for orbital floor reconstruction.

KW - biomaterials

KW - implants

KW - orbital floor fractures

KW - Orbital floor reconstruction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870179848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870179848&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825aada1

DO - 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825aada1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84870179848

VL - 23

JO - Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Craniofacial Surgery

SN - 1049-2275

IS - 7 SUPPL.1

ER -