Midfacial trauma: subtarsal lower-eyelid incision to access and repair orbital floor fractures

Author(s):  
H. Nazir ◽  
J.C. Kelly ◽  
S. Sah
2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. e34
Author(s):  
Bagrat Lalabekyan ◽  
Bagrat Lalabekyan ◽  
Colin Hopper ◽  
Naresh Joshi ◽  
Niall Kirckpatrick

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Christian Pausch ◽  
Nattapong Sirintawat ◽  
Rouven Wagner ◽  
Dirk Halama ◽  
Kittipong Dhanuthai

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 898-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sanjuan-Sanjuan ◽  
S. Heredero-Jung ◽  
M. Ogledzki ◽  
R. Arévalo-Arévalo ◽  
A. Dean-Ferrer

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Piombino ◽  
Giorgio Iaconetta ◽  
Roberto Ciccarelli ◽  
Antonio Romeo ◽  
Alessia Spinzia ◽  
...  

We report our experience with the repair of the orbital floor fractures and present new technical findings. We evaluated 30 subjects with pure blowout fractures treated at the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery of the Federico II University of Naples, Italy, between 2005 and 2007. A preoperative examination by computed tomography scans provided classification of the orbital floor fractures into small and large fractures by measurement of the bone defect to choose the appropriate reconstructive implant materials, resorbable or nonresorbable. The clinical follow-up has been performed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. We observed a resolution of preoperative symptoms. The scar was not evident, and there was an absence of postoperative complications. We concluded that the use of resorbable materials for small orbital floor fractures and nonresorbable materials for large orbital floor fractures offers satisfactory results in both functional and aesthetic considerations. Furthermore, the new technical findings allow standardization of the surgical technique to be more accurate, also reducing the economic costs.


Medicines ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Akash Sivam ◽  
Natalie Enninghorst

The aim of this study is to present a narrative review of the properties of materials currently used for orbital floor reconstruction. Orbital floor fractures, due to their complex anatomy, physiology, and aesthetic concerns, pose complexities regarding management. Since the 1950s, a myriad of materials has been used to reconstruct orbital floor fractures. This narrative review synthesises the findings of literature retrieved from search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. This narrative review was conducted of 66 studies on reconstructive materials. Ideal material properties are that they are resorbable, osteoconductive, resistant to infection, minimally reactive, do not induce capsule formation, allow for bony ingrowth, are cheap, and readily available. Autologous implants provide reliable, lifelong, and biocompatible material choices. Allogenic materials pose a threat of catastrophic disease transmission. Newer alloplastic materials have gained popularity. Consideration must be made when deliberating the use of permanent alloplastic materials that are a foreign body with potential body interactions, or the use of resorbable alloplastic materials failing to provide adequate support for orbital contents. It is vital that surgeons have an appropriate knowledge of materials so that they are used appropriately and reduce the risks of complications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document