Orbit (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2013
Orbital adherence with titanium mesh floor implants: a review of 10 cases.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Kersey Thomas L, Ng Stephen G J, Rosser Paul, Sloan Brian, Hart Richard
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Multiple materials have been used in the repair of orbital floor fractures. We report 10 cases of complications relating to the use of titanium mesh orbital floor implants.
METHOD: A retrospective review of 10 cases in 2 centres in New Zealand. Patients presented with diplopia or eyelid retraction following repair of an orbital floor fracture with titanium mesh implants.
RESULTS: Ten patients (7 male, 3 female) aged between 15-78 years old (mean 39 years) presented with significant restriction of eye movement and/or eyelid retraction following repair of an orbital floor fracture with a titanium mesh implant. Seven patients presented with restriction of eye movement alone. Three patients had lower lid retraction in addition to restriction of eye movement. One patient presented with epiphora following erosion of the implant through the nasolacrimal duct. Seven patients underwent surgical removal of the implant with all patients showing improvement of extraocular movement post-operatively. Three cases did not undergo implant removal with one case showing mild improvement over 9 months, and 2 cases showing no improvement. The mean interval between the initial surgery and removal of the implant was 7.1 months.
DISCUSSION: In our series, 7 cases required explantation of the original titanium implant. In these cases a vigorous fibrotic reaction had taken place between the orbital contents and the titanium mesh implant. We postulate that the fibrous reaction between the implant and the orbital contents caused the eye movement restriction and the lid retraction. Implant materials used in orbital floor fracture surgery should be inert with a flat profile rather than a mesh to prevent adhesions through the mesh that may cause cicatricial eye movement restriction and eyelid retraction.
METHOD: A retrospective review of 10 cases in 2 centres in New Zealand. Patients presented with diplopia or eyelid retraction following repair of an orbital floor fracture with titanium mesh implants.
RESULTS: Ten patients (7 male, 3 female) aged between 15-78 years old (mean 39 years) presented with significant restriction of eye movement and/or eyelid retraction following repair of an orbital floor fracture with a titanium mesh implant. Seven patients presented with restriction of eye movement alone. Three patients had lower lid retraction in addition to restriction of eye movement. One patient presented with epiphora following erosion of the implant through the nasolacrimal duct. Seven patients underwent surgical removal of the implant with all patients showing improvement of extraocular movement post-operatively. Three cases did not undergo implant removal with one case showing mild improvement over 9 months, and 2 cases showing no improvement. The mean interval between the initial surgery and removal of the implant was 7.1 months.
DISCUSSION: In our series, 7 cases required explantation of the original titanium implant. In these cases a vigorous fibrotic reaction had taken place between the orbital contents and the titanium mesh implant. We postulate that the fibrous reaction between the implant and the orbital contents caused the eye movement restriction and the lid retraction. Implant materials used in orbital floor fracture surgery should be inert with a flat profile rather than a mesh to prevent adhesions through the mesh that may cause cicatricial eye movement restriction and eyelid retraction.