Resorbable Versus Nonresorbable Implants in Pediatric Orbital Fracture Repair.

PURPOSE: This study compares postoperative outcomes of resorbable versus nonresorbable implants in pediatric orbital fracture repair.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of 132 pediatric patients who underwent surgical repair of orbital fractures at Texas Children's Hospital between 2011 and 2023. Patients were grouped by implant type: nonresorbable (n=100), resorbable (n=15), mixed (n=3), and no implant (n=14). The authors analyzed patient demographics, fracture characteristics, surgical approach, and postoperative outcome measures, including persistent diplopia, enophthalmos, extraocular motility deficit, infraorbital hypoesthesia, signs of infection, and necessity of revision surgery.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between implant types for any outcome measures, including persistence of diplopia, enophthalmos, extraocular motility deficit, infraorbital hypoesthesia, and the necessity of revision surgery. Nonresorbable implants were used in the majority of cases (75.8%) with a slight trend toward higher frequencies of negative postoperative outcomes, including persistence of diplopia and extraocular motility restriction. No signs of infection were reported in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study indicate comparable safety and functionality of resorbable and nonresorbable implants in the repair of pediatric orbital fractures. While the use of nonresorbable implants is more common, resorbable implants may offer advantages, particularly in the pediatric population.