Orbital fracture repair outcomes with preformed titanium mesh implants and comparison to porous polyethylene coated titanium sheets

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background Restoration of orbital volume after internal orbital fractures can prevent enophthalmos. A variety of allografts are commonly used including titanium mesh with and without porous polyethylene coating. Some controversy exists over the use of uncoated titanium mesh in the orbit. Newer products contoured to the three dimensional orbital anatomy aim to improve reestablishment of the complex orbital shape though studies of outcomes with their use are limited. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate surgical outcomes in all patients who underwent orbital fracture repair with DePuy/Synthes titanium MatrixMIDFACE prefabricated implants (PFTi) as compared with porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implants (PPETi) including Stryker Medpor Titan, MTB, and BTB implants. Incidence of reoperation, diplopia, and movement restriction between PFTi and PPETi groups and the risk ratio of the above outcomes between implant types were compared. Results A total of 464 orbital implants were reviewed. Patients were divided by implant type with 195 patients receiving a PFTi implant and 269 patients receiving PPETi implant. (PFTi) and 269 had placement of a porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implant. Despite statistically significant increased probability of utilization in more complex and delayed fractures, the PFTi implant showed no significant difference in complication profile or reoperation rate compared to the more commonly used PPETi. Conclusions PFTi implants, designed to replicate the native orbital shape, have similar surgical outcomes and no difference in complication profile compared to standard porous polyethylene/titanium implants hybrid plates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)271-274
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume45
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

Orbital Fractures
Polyethylene
Titanium
Reoperation
Orbital Implants
Enophthalmos
Diplopia
Orbit
Allografts
Anatomy
Odds Ratio
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Custom implants
  • Custom orbital implants
  • Orbital fracture
  • Orbital fracture repair
  • Orbital implants
  • Preformed orbital implants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

@article{fc714d72488b45eda02324b7aca5a27f,
title = "Orbital fracture repair outcomes with preformed titanium mesh implants and comparison to porous polyethylene coated titanium sheets",
abstract = "Background Restoration of orbital volume after internal orbital fractures can prevent enophthalmos. A variety of allografts are commonly used including titanium mesh with and without porous polyethylene coating. Some controversy exists over the use of uncoated titanium mesh in the orbit. Newer products contoured to the three dimensional orbital anatomy aim to improve reestablishment of the complex orbital shape though studies of outcomes with their use are limited. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate surgical outcomes in all patients who underwent orbital fracture repair with DePuy/Synthes titanium MatrixMIDFACE prefabricated implants (PFTi) as compared with porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implants (PPETi) including Stryker Medpor Titan, MTB, and BTB implants. Incidence of reoperation, diplopia, and movement restriction between PFTi and PPETi groups and the risk ratio of the above outcomes between implant types were compared. Results A total of 464 orbital implants were reviewed. Patients were divided by implant type with 195 patients receiving a PFTi implant and 269 patients receiving PPETi implant. (PFTi) and 269 had placement of a porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implant. Despite statistically significant increased probability of utilization in more complex and delayed fractures, the PFTi implant showed no significant difference in complication profile or reoperation rate compared to the more commonly used PPETi. Conclusions PFTi implants, designed to replicate the native orbital shape, have similar surgical outcomes and no difference in complication profile compared to standard porous polyethylene/titanium implants hybrid plates.",
keywords = "Custom implants, Custom orbital implants, Orbital fracture, Orbital fracture repair, Orbital implants, Preformed orbital implants",
author = "Peng, {Michelle Y.} and Merbs, {Shannath L} and Michael Grant and Nicholas Mahoney",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcms.2016.11.020",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "271--274",
journal = "Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery",
issn = "1010-5182",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Orbital fracture repair outcomes with preformed titanium mesh implants and comparison to porous polyethylene coated titanium sheets

AU - Peng, Michelle Y.

AU - Merbs, Shannath L

AU - Grant, Michael

AU - Mahoney, Nicholas

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - Background Restoration of orbital volume after internal orbital fractures can prevent enophthalmos. A variety of allografts are commonly used including titanium mesh with and without porous polyethylene coating. Some controversy exists over the use of uncoated titanium mesh in the orbit. Newer products contoured to the three dimensional orbital anatomy aim to improve reestablishment of the complex orbital shape though studies of outcomes with their use are limited. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate surgical outcomes in all patients who underwent orbital fracture repair with DePuy/Synthes titanium MatrixMIDFACE prefabricated implants (PFTi) as compared with porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implants (PPETi) including Stryker Medpor Titan, MTB, and BTB implants. Incidence of reoperation, diplopia, and movement restriction between PFTi and PPETi groups and the risk ratio of the above outcomes between implant types were compared. Results A total of 464 orbital implants were reviewed. Patients were divided by implant type with 195 patients receiving a PFTi implant and 269 patients receiving PPETi implant. (PFTi) and 269 had placement of a porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implant. Despite statistically significant increased probability of utilization in more complex and delayed fractures, the PFTi implant showed no significant difference in complication profile or reoperation rate compared to the more commonly used PPETi. Conclusions PFTi implants, designed to replicate the native orbital shape, have similar surgical outcomes and no difference in complication profile compared to standard porous polyethylene/titanium implants hybrid plates.

AB - Background Restoration of orbital volume after internal orbital fractures can prevent enophthalmos. A variety of allografts are commonly used including titanium mesh with and without porous polyethylene coating. Some controversy exists over the use of uncoated titanium mesh in the orbit. Newer products contoured to the three dimensional orbital anatomy aim to improve reestablishment of the complex orbital shape though studies of outcomes with their use are limited. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate surgical outcomes in all patients who underwent orbital fracture repair with DePuy/Synthes titanium MatrixMIDFACE prefabricated implants (PFTi) as compared with porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implants (PPETi) including Stryker Medpor Titan, MTB, and BTB implants. Incidence of reoperation, diplopia, and movement restriction between PFTi and PPETi groups and the risk ratio of the above outcomes between implant types were compared. Results A total of 464 orbital implants were reviewed. Patients were divided by implant type with 195 patients receiving a PFTi implant and 269 patients receiving PPETi implant. (PFTi) and 269 had placement of a porous polyethylene/titanium hybrid implant. Despite statistically significant increased probability of utilization in more complex and delayed fractures, the PFTi implant showed no significant difference in complication profile or reoperation rate compared to the more commonly used PPETi. Conclusions PFTi implants, designed to replicate the native orbital shape, have similar surgical outcomes and no difference in complication profile compared to standard porous polyethylene/titanium implants hybrid plates.

KW - Custom implants

KW - Custom orbital implants

KW - Orbital fracture

KW - Orbital fracture repair

KW - Orbital implants

KW - Preformed orbital implants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009250302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009250302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.11.020

DO - 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.11.020

M3 - Article

C2 - 28038883

AN - SCOPUS:85009250302

VL - 45

SP - 271

EP - 274

JO - Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery

JF - Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery

SN - 1010-5182

IS - 2

ER -