Annals of plastic surgery · 2018
Resorbable Implants for Orbital Fractures: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramesh Sathyadeepak, Hubschman Sasha, Goldberg Robert
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Orbital fractures are one of the most common sequelae of facial trauma.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to summarize published data for resorbable implants in orbital reconstruction, including polymer composition, degradation characteristics, osteoconductivity, and complications such as enophthalmos, diplopia, and peri-implant inflammation. A literature search of the National Library of Medicine was performed via PubMed using the keyword resorbable orbital implant. A total of 27 studies were reviewed. Strength of data was assessed according to the Oxford Centre criteria.
RESULTS: Most commercially available implants provide adequate tensile strength for up to 6 months (with the exception of polydioxanone, which loses strength within 1 month, and poly(D,L-lactide) within 3 months). This is sufficient for the isolated orbital floor or medial wall (tensile strength, ~300 MPa) but insufficient for reconstruction of load-bearing areas (eg, the inferior orbital rim with tensile strength of ~1.2 GPa). Thicker products (>1 mm) have increased risk for delayed inflammation than thinner products. Postoperative complications including delayed inflammation (0%-9%), eyelid malposition (0%-5%), enophthalmos (5%-16%), diplopia (0%-16%), infection (0%-2%), and infraorbital nerve hypesthesia (2%-18%) are variably distributed across implants with several notable exceptions: poly(L-lactide) has an increased risk of delayed inflammation, and polydioxanone has a risk of delayed enophthalmos and hematoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Resorbable implants are suitable for isolated medial wall or floor fractures with intact bony buttresses and function as a barrier rather than a load-bearing support.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to summarize published data for resorbable implants in orbital reconstruction, including polymer composition, degradation characteristics, osteoconductivity, and complications such as enophthalmos, diplopia, and peri-implant inflammation. A literature search of the National Library of Medicine was performed via PubMed using the keyword resorbable orbital implant. A total of 27 studies were reviewed. Strength of data was assessed according to the Oxford Centre criteria.
RESULTS: Most commercially available implants provide adequate tensile strength for up to 6 months (with the exception of polydioxanone, which loses strength within 1 month, and poly(D,L-lactide) within 3 months). This is sufficient for the isolated orbital floor or medial wall (tensile strength, ~300 MPa) but insufficient for reconstruction of load-bearing areas (eg, the inferior orbital rim with tensile strength of ~1.2 GPa). Thicker products (>1 mm) have increased risk for delayed inflammation than thinner products. Postoperative complications including delayed inflammation (0%-9%), eyelid malposition (0%-5%), enophthalmos (5%-16%), diplopia (0%-16%), infection (0%-2%), and infraorbital nerve hypesthesia (2%-18%) are variably distributed across implants with several notable exceptions: poly(L-lactide) has an increased risk of delayed inflammation, and polydioxanone has a risk of delayed enophthalmos and hematoma.
CONCLUSIONS: Resorbable implants are suitable for isolated medial wall or floor fractures with intact bony buttresses and function as a barrier rather than a load-bearing support.