Management of complications of Medpor® implants in rhinoplasty

Agrawal, Kapil; Shrotriya, Raghav

doi:10.20517/2347-9264.2017.06

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In case of esthetic products, flexibility is one of the crucial requirements for clinical result and in this regard due to being highly flexible in nature silicone is widely used than acrylic resin 34 . There is a synthetic biomaterial, named Medpor, which is widely used for both nasal and ear reconstruction, 35,36 but infection in the implanted site affects around 14.8% patients with medpor‐based ear reconstruction surgery 37 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatible implant mimicking cartilage: A new horizon for reconstructive facial field

Biswas¹,

Dey²,

Chakrabarty³

et al. 2020

Artificial Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cartilage is avascular with limited to no regenerative capacity, so its loss could be a challenge for reconstructive surgery. Current treatment options for damaged cartilage are also limited. In this aspect there is a tremendous need to develop an ideal cartilage‐mimicking biomaterial that could repair maxillofacial defects. Considering this fact in this study we have prepared twelve silicone‐based materials (using Silicone 40, 60, and 80) reinforced with hydroxyapatite, tri‐calcium phosphate, and titanium dioxide which itself has proven their efficacy in several studies and able to complement the shortcomings of using silicones. Among the mechanical properties (Young’s modulus, tensile strength, percent elongation, and hardness), hardness of Silicone‐40 showed similarities with goat ear (P > .05). Silicone peaks have been detected in FTIR. Both AFM morphology and SEM images of the samples confirmed more roughed surfaces. All the materials were nonhemolytic in hemocompatibility tests, but among the twelve materials S2, S3, S5, and S6 showed the least hemolysis. For all tested bacterial strains, adherence was lower on each material than that grown on the plain industrial silicone material which was used as a positive control. S2, S3, S5, and S6 samples were selected as the best based on mechanical characterizations, surface characterizations, in vitro hemocompatibility tests and bacterial adherence activity. So, outcomes of this present study would be promising when developing ideal cartilage‐mimicking biocomposites and their emerging applications to treat maxillofacial defects due to cartilage damage.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatible implant mimicking cartilage: A new horizon for reconstructive facial field

Biswas¹,

Dey²,

Chakrabarty³

et al. 2020

Artificial Organs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of postrhinoplasty infection with alloplastic materials is considerably more of a concern than with autografts . According to the literature, the incidence of postoperative infection in cases of alloplastic rhinoplasty is approximately 2.8% to 4% . In many cases, implant removal is required; however, this can be extremely difficult owing to tissue incorporation …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the literature, the incidence of postoperative infection in cases of alloplastic rhinoplasty is approximately 2.8% to 4% . In many cases, implant removal is required; however, this can be extremely difficult owing to tissue incorporation …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The implant should be exposed as widely as necessary to ensure that the ePTFE lining does not delaminate from the inner silicone core and no prosthetic material is left behind . Exploratory surgery is tedious owing to the high incidence of button holing and thinning, as well as the risk of damaging the overlying skin and surrounding structures . We recommend implant removal by meticulous dissection using an endoscopic approach to allow complete removal of the retained alloplastic materials without damaging surrounding connective tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Postrhinoplasty Infection With Residual Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene-Coated Silicone Implantation

Hao¹,

Wu²,

Hsu³

et al. 2020

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…8 This property represents its primary strength but also its greatest weakness. 9 Medpor implant causes thinning of the overlying skin envelope and although the implant becomes densely adherent to the surrounding soft tissue, it does not bond with the underlying bone or cartilage firmly enough and hence mild mobility is always a problem. 10 These implants have high infection (3-4%) and extrusion rates, ranging from 3.1%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant mimicking cartilage for craniofacial reconstruction: A new material introduced for research

Biswas¹,

Chakrabarty²,

Dey³

et al. 2019

JOOO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss of facial structure as a consequence of injury or salvaging surgery, demands reconstruction and rehabilitation of lost structures. Here comes the role of a reconstructive and craniofacial surgeon. Lots of surgical options are available to fulfil the requirement but all require a second operative site to restore the primary defect. New age of scientific development are in search of regenerate the lost structures by the means of stem cell or biocompatible material. In such search we have tried to contribute by development of implant mimicking cartilage to reconstruct the lost facial structure. In this article we are going to share our research experience, to fulfil our goal and objective we have developed three different types of biocompatible silicon material (Si-40, Si60 & Si80). After formulation, preparation and mechanical characterization, it was observed that Si40 was best suitable silicone for bio-composite preparation.

show abstract

Management of complications of Medpor® implants in rhinoplasty

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Biocompatible implant mimicking cartilage: A new horizon for reconstructive facial field

Biocompatible implant mimicking cartilage: A new horizon for reconstructive facial field

Postrhinoplasty Infection With Residual Expanded Polytetrafluoroethylene-Coated Silicone Implantation

Implant mimicking cartilage for craniofacial reconstruction: A new material introduced for research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About