Efficacy of Iliac Crest vs. Medpor in Orbital Floor Reconstruction

Abstract

Aim The present study is to compare the effectiveness of iliac crest graft and medpor implant, for repairing traumatic orbital floor defects. Materials and methods A total of 20 patients were included in the study. Autogenous iliac crest graft and medpor implant was used in 10 patients of the each group. Patients were evaluated for the presence or absence of diplopia, enophthalmos, infraorbital nerve paresthesia, and ocular motility disorders. Surgical indications for orbital exploration included entrapment of orbital tissues, large orbital defect (greater than 50% of the orbital floor or more than 8 mm), or orbital floor defects with involvement of other zygomaticofrontal complex fractures. Results All patients were successfully treated by restoration of the orbital wall continuity. Follow-up was done at 1-12 weeks. One patient had postoperative infection. There was no graft extrusion. Conclusions Both the groups showed satisfactory results, but group II was better than group I, as there was no donor site morbidity. Porous polyethylene (Medpor) is a biocompatible and high-density polyethylene implant. It is well tolerated by surrounding tissue, and its porous structure is rapidly infiltrated by host tissue. It is a highly stable and somewhat flexible porous alloplast that has rapid tissue in growth into its pores.

Porous polyethylene implants in facial reconstruction: Outcome and complications

“…Improper treatment of the zygomatico-orbital area results in loss of malar projection, enophthalmos, and dystopia (Eski et al, 2007). An orbit floor defect can lead to diplopia, limitation of ocular movement, infra-orbital numbness, enophthalmos, and reduced vision (Gosau et al, 2011;Ram et al, 2010). In most cases, craniofacial surgery is performed to improve anatomical functioning (e.g., vision).…”

“…The benefits of using autogenous material include relative resistance to infection, relative ease of incorporation into new bone, absence of a foreign body reaction, and a decreased incidence of extrusion (O'Connell et al, 2015). However, there are important disadvantages to using autogenous bone grafts, including unpredictable resorption, displacement problems, donorsite morbidity, and prolonged surgical time (Cenzi et al, 2005;Frodel and Lee, 1998;Lin et al, 2007;Ozturk et al, 2005;Ram et al, 2010). Use of alloplastic implants is shown to be associated with low morbidity rates, but this is site and material dependent (Menderes et al, 2004).…”

Letter to the Editor

“…I read with interest the recent article by Hari Ram et al [1] entitled, efficacy of iliac crest versus medpor in orbital floor reconstruction. This is the excellent comparison of autogenous bone graft with allogenic graft in consideration with reconstruction of orbital floor and I congratulate the author for this wonderful job.…”

Surgical Approach in the Repair of Four Different Orbital Wall Fractures and Results in Four Years

“…Çoğunlukla cerrahi endikasyon sebeplerini de bu durumlar oluşturmaktadır. [1][2][3][4][5] Orbital duvar kı-Dört Farklı Orbital Duvar Fraktürü Tamirinde Cerrahi Yaklaşım ve Dört Yıllık Sonuçları Ö ÖZ ZE ET T A Am ma aç ç: : Orbital duvar fraktürü nedeni ile cerrahi tamir yapılan hastaların 4 yıllık cerrahi sonuçlarını değerlendirmektir. G Ge er re eç ç v ve e Y Yö ön nt te em ml le er r: : Orbital duvar fraktürü nedeni ile cerrahi uygulanan 25 hastanın dosyaları retrospektik olarak incelendi.…”