The Journal of craniofacial surgery · 2011
Comparison of the outcomes of blowout fracture repair according to the orbital implant.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Han Dae Heon, Chi Mijung
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The clinical outcomes of blowout fracture repair classified by 2 types of orbital implants (Macropore and Medpor) were compared.
PROCEDURES: The medical records of 331 patients with orbital fractures that were treated surgically by 1 surgeon at Gachon University Gil hospital, from March 2007 to March 2009, were reviewed. Patients who had diplopia or limited extraocular motion, significant enophthalmos (>2 mm), or a large fracture on a computed tomographic scan (>50% of the floor area) were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received surgical repair using Macropore and those who had surgical repair using Medpor.
RESULTS: One hundred six patients had surgical repair using Macropore and 225 patients were surgically treated with Medpor. Both the Macropore (n = 106) and the Medpor groups (n = 225) showed significant clinical improvement. The degree of preoperative/postoperative diplopia and limited extraocular motion was not different between the 2 groups. In addition, there was no difference in the preoperative/postoperative enophthalmos between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Macropore and Medpor were associated with equally safe and satisfactory patient outcomes without notable complications.
PROCEDURES: The medical records of 331 patients with orbital fractures that were treated surgically by 1 surgeon at Gachon University Gil hospital, from March 2007 to March 2009, were reviewed. Patients who had diplopia or limited extraocular motion, significant enophthalmos (>2 mm), or a large fracture on a computed tomographic scan (>50% of the floor area) were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received surgical repair using Macropore and those who had surgical repair using Medpor.
RESULTS: One hundred six patients had surgical repair using Macropore and 225 patients were surgically treated with Medpor. Both the Macropore (n = 106) and the Medpor groups (n = 225) showed significant clinical improvement. The degree of preoperative/postoperative diplopia and limited extraocular motion was not different between the 2 groups. In addition, there was no difference in the preoperative/postoperative enophthalmos between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Macropore and Medpor were associated with equally safe and satisfactory patient outcomes without notable complications.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Absorbable ImplantsAdultBone SubstitutesConjunctivaDiplopiaEnophthalmosEye MovementsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLength of StayMaleOcular Motility DisordersOrbitOrbital FracturesOrbital ImplantsPeriosteumPolyestersPolyethylenesProsthesis-Related InfectionsPlastic Surgery ProceduresRecovery of FunctionRetrospective StudiesSafetyTreatment Outcome