J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > Volume 55(5); 2014 > Article
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2014;55(5):640-645.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2014.55.5.640    Published online May 15, 2014.
Reconstruction of Orbital Medial Wall Fracture with Absorbable and Non-Absorbable Orbital Implant: Comparative Study.
Min Kyung Kim, Sun Young Jang, Hye Sun Choi
1Department of Ophthalmology, Kim's Eye Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, Myung-Gok Eye Research Institute, Seoul, Korea. hs0903@kimeye.com
2Department of Ophthalmology, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea.
흡수성과 비흡수성 안와 내 삽입물을 이용한 안와 내벽골절 수술결과: 비교 연구
김민경1⋅장선영2⋅최혜선1
Department of Ophthalmology, Kim’s Eye Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, Myung-Gok Eye Research Institute1, Seoul, Korea
Department of Ophthalmology, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine2, Bucheon, Korea
Abstract
PURPOSE
To compare the surgical results and complications of medial wall fracture reconstruction using non-absorbable porous polyethylene implants (Medpor(R), Stryker Instruments, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA) and an absorbable polymer of polyglycolic acid (PGA) and polylactic acid (PLA) (Mesh plate(R), Inion Ltd, Tampere, Finland). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent reconstruction of medial wall fracture between January 2007 and June 2012 and divided them into 2 groups according to orbital implant type (Medpor(R), Mesh plate(R)). RESULTS: Among the 86 patients, 37 were treated with Medpor(R) and 49 with Mesh plate(R). There was no statistically significant difference in limitation of motion or diplopia score between the 2 groups at postoperative 6 months (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.192, p = 0.128, respectively). Mean postoperative exophthalmometry differences between the eyes were 0.49 +/- 1.04 mm and 0.37 +/- 0.62 mm in Medpor(R) and Mesh plate(R) groups, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference (independent t-test, p = 0.512). Postoperative complications such as inflammation or implant malposition were observed only in 3 patients in the Medpor(R) group. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was observed between Medpor(R) and Mesh plate(R) in terms of surgical results during the postoperative 6 month period after reconstruction of orbital medial wall fracture. However, postoperative complications were observed in 3 patients in the Medpor(R) group.
Key Words: Implants;Medial wall fracture;Medpor;Mesh plate;Orbital wall reconstruction


ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
SKY 1004 Building #701
50-1 Jungnim-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 04508, Korea
Tel: +82-2-583-6520    Fax: +82-2-583-6521    E-mail: kos08@ophthalmology.org                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Ophthalmological Society.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next