Abstract
There are distinct advantages and disadvantages between bioresorbable and permanent implants in orbital floor reconstruction. Our aim was to compare the outcomes and complications of resorbable implants and permanent implants in orbital floor fracture repair. A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent orbital floor fracture repair at a rural, tertiary care center from 2011 through 2016. Main outcome measures included improvement in diplopia, ocular motility, enophthalmos, hypoglobus, and infraorbital nerve sensation. A total of 87 patients underwent orbital floor reconstruction. After exclusion criteria were applied, 22 patients were included in the absorbable implant cohort, and 20 patients in the nonabsorbable implant cohort. All absorbable implants were composed of poly L-lactide/poly glycolide/poly D-lactide (PLL/PG/PDL), and nonabsorbable implants included both titanium/porous polyethylene (Ti/PPE) composite and titanium (Ti) mesh. Mean fracture surface area was 2.1 cm2 (standard deviation [SD]:± 0.9 cm2, range: 0.4–3.6 cm2) for the absorbable implant group and 2.3 cm2 (SD: ± 1.1 cm2, range: 0.6–4.4 cm2) for the nonabsorbable implant group (p = 0.58). There were no significant differences in diplopia, ocular motility, enophthalmos, hypoglobus, and infraorbital nerve sensation between absorbable and nonabsorbable implant groups. The mean follow-up time for absorbable and nonabsorbable implant groups was 622 (SD ± 313) and 578 (SD ± 151) days respectively (p = 0.57). For moderate-size orbital floor fracture repairs, there is no difference in outcomes between absorbable implants consisting of PLL/PG/PDL and nonabsorbable implants consisting of Ti mesh or Ti/PPE combination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.