MedElevator
Войти в исследования Orbit (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
Bone grafts versus titanium mesh implants in orbital fracture management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание 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.
Lee Choon Yit Preston Dean, Rees Amelia, Al-Wizni Ahmed, Saleki Mohammad, Attygalla Manjula, Dharmasena Aruna
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of bone grafts versus titanium mesh implants in managing orbital fractures, focusing on diplopia, enophthalmos, postoperative complications, and aesthetic outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing bone grafts and titanium mesh in orbital fracture management were included. Primary outcomes included diplopia, enophthalmos, complications. Aesthetic outcomes were qualitatively assessed. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed and random-effects models and risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 291 patients were included. No significant difference in diplopia incidence was observed between groups (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 0.52-6.71; p = 0.34). Titanium mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of enophthalmos (OR: 2.83; 95% CI: 1.19-6.75; p = 0.02). Complication rates were comparable (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 0.55-10.35; p = 0.25). Aesthetic outcomes were favourable with both materials but insufficiently reported for meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION: Both bone grafts and titanium mesh implants are effective options for orbital fracture repair. Titanium mesh offers advantages in restoring orbital volume and preventing enophthalmos, supporting its preferential use in high-risk cases. Material selection should consider patient factors, defect characteristics, surgeon expertise and material availability.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing bone grafts and titanium mesh in orbital fracture management were included. Primary outcomes included diplopia, enophthalmos, complications. Aesthetic outcomes were qualitatively assessed. Meta-analyses were performed using fixed and random-effects models and risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 291 patients were included. No significant difference in diplopia incidence was observed between groups (OR: 1.87; 95% CI: 0.52-6.71; p = 0.34). Titanium mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of enophthalmos (OR: 2.83; 95% CI: 1.19-6.75; p = 0.02). Complication rates were comparable (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 0.55-10.35; p = 0.25). Aesthetic outcomes were favourable with both materials but insufficiently reported for meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION: Both bone grafts and titanium mesh implants are effective options for orbital fracture repair. Titanium mesh offers advantages in restoring orbital volume and preventing enophthalmos, supporting its preferential use in high-risk cases. Material selection should consider patient factors, defect characteristics, surgeon expertise and material availability.