Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.49(7) > 1008011

TOOLS
Yeon, In, and Seong: An Analysis of Orbital Reconstruction with Bioresorbable Plate Through Orbital Volume Assessment
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2008;49(7):1046-1053.

Published online: 7 September 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2008.49.7.1046

An Analysis of Orbital Reconstruction with Bioresorbable Plate Through Orbital Volume Assessment

Jeong Park Yeon, M.D.1, Young Chung In, M.D.1, 2, Wook Seo Seong1, 2,

Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University, Colleage of Medicine, Chinju, Korea

Gyeongsang Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University, Chinju, Korea

Address reprint requests to Seong Wook Seo, M.D. Department of Ophthalmology, Gyeongsang National University #92 Chilam-dong, Chinju-city, Gyongsangnam-do 660-702, Korea Tel: 82-55-750-8172, Fax: 82-55-758-4158, E-mail: stramast@gaechuk.gsnu.ac.kr

Received 2 April 2008       Accepted 20 August 2007

Copyright © 2015 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the early effect of orbital reconstruction with MacroPore® by assessment of orbital volume through orbital computed tomography (CT) in cases of orbital wall fracture

Methods

We performed orbital reconstruction with MacroPore® in patients with orbital wall fracture smaller than 3 cm×2 cm. Orbital CT was done preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. We then evaluated the results by measuring the orbital volume through Rapidia 2.8 program.

Results

The study comprised 14 patients. The site of fracture was the medial wall in one patient, inferior in seven, and both medial and inferior in six patients. The site of insertion of MacroPore® was the medial wall in one patient, inferior in 12, and both medial and inferior walls in one. The mean volume of the affected orbit before operation was 20.23±2.78 cm3 that of the unaffected orbit was 18.27±2.24 cm3 (p- value=0.000), and the mean volume of the affected orbit after operation was 19.06±2.57 cm3 that of the unaffected orbit was 18.06±2.24 cm3 (p-value=0.000). The mean enophthalmos before operation was 1.00±0.62 mm, and after operation was 0.64±0.46 mm. The mean difference of orbital volume between the affected and the unaffected orbits before operation was 1.96±0.33 cm3 and 1.00±0.87 cm3 after operation (p-value=0.000). The mean volume of the affected orbit before operation was 20.23±2.77 cm3 and 19.06±2.57 cm3 after operation (p-value=0.000). Each cubic centimeter decrement in volume caused a 0.67±0.68 mm mean decrease of enophthalmos.

Conclusions

We concluded that MacroPore® was safe orbital implant and effective in decreasing the orbital volume at early orbital reconstruction in cases of orbital wall fracture smaller than 3 cm×2 cm through a comparison of orbital volume before and after operation.

Keywords: Assessment of orbital volume, MacroPore®, Orbital reconstruction

References

1. Rubin PA, Bilyk JP, Shore JW. Management of orbital trauma: fractures, hemorrhage, and traumatic optic neuropathy. Am Acad Ophthalmol Focal Points. 1994; 7:1–8.
2. Dutton JJ. Management of blow-out fractures of the orbital floor. Surv Ophthalmol. 1991; 35:279–80.
3. Chi MJ, Jeung JW, Lee JH. Reconstruction of orbital wall fracture with resorbable copolymer mesh. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1021–1030.
4. Al-Sukhun J, Törnwall J, Lindqvist C, Konito R. Bioresorbable poly-L/DL-lactide plates are reliable for repairing large inferior orbital wall bony defects: a pilot study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64:47–55.
5. Ploder O, Oeckher M, Klug C. . Follow-up study of treatment of orbital floor fractures: relation of clinical data and software-based CT-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 32:257–262.
crossref
6. Ye J, Kook KH, Lee SY. Evaluation of computer-based volume measurement and porous polyethylene channel implants in reconstruction of large orbital wall fractures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006; 47:509–513.
crossref
7. Raskin EM, Millman AL, Lubkin V. . Prediction of late enophthalmos by volumetric analysis of orbital fractures. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998; 14:19–26.
crossref
8. Fan X, Li J, Li H. . Computer-assisted orbital volume measurement in the surgical correction of late enophthalmos caused by blowout fractures. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 19:207–211.
crossref
9. Mathog RH. Management of orbital blow-out fractures. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1991; 24:79–91.
crossref
10. Choi JC, Fleming JC, Aitken PA, Shore JW. Porous polyethylene channel implants: a modified porous polyethylene sheet implant designed for repairs of large and complex orbital wall fractures. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999; 15:56–66.
11. Al-Sukhun J, Lindqvist C. A comparative study of 2 implants used to repair inferior orbital wall bony defects: autogenous bone graft versus bioresorbable poly-L/DL-lactide plate. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64:1038–1048.
12. Jeon SY, Kwon JH, Kim JP. . Endoscopic intranasal reduction of the orbit in isolated blowout fractures. Acta OtoLaryngol. 2007; 558:S102–9.
crossref
13. Putterman AM. Management of blow out fractures of the orbital floor. The conservative approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 1991; 35:292–8.
14. Hawes MJ, Dortzbach RK. Surgery on orbital floor fractures. Influence of time of repair and fracture size. Ophthalmology. 1983; 90:1066–70.
15. Hosal BM, Beatty RL. Diplopia and enophthalmos after surgical repair of blowout fracture. Orbit. 2002; 21:27–33.
crossref
16. Yang PJ, Chi NC, Choi GJ. Comparison of surgical outcome between early and delayed repair of orbital wall fracture. Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1278–84.
17. De Man K, Wijngaarde R, Hes J, de Jong PT. Influence of age on the management of blow-out fractures of the orbital floor. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991; l20:330–6.
crossref
18. Harris GJ, Garcia GH, Logani SC. . Orbital blow-out fractures: Correlation of preoperative computed tomography and postoperative ocular motility. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1998; 96:329–47.

Figure 1.
MacroPore®.
jkos-49-1046f1.tif
Figure 2.
Orbital CT scanning : before (A) and after operation (B).
jkos-49-1046f2.tif
Figure 3.
Measurement of orbital volume by Rapidia 2.8 program: before (A) and after operation (B).
jkos-49-1046f3.tif
Table 1.
Demographic data of patients
Patients Sex Age (years) Time of repair from trauma (days) Type of fracture Insertion site of MacroPore® N umbers of inserted Macropore®
1 M 38 41 Med* & Inf† Med* 1
2 M 18 30 Med* & Inf† Inf† 1
3 M 49 12 Inf† Inf† 1
4 M 15 15 Inf† Inf† 1
5 M 44 14 Med* & Inf† Inf† 1
6 M 19 4 Inf† Inf 1
7 M 38 4 Med* & Inf† Inf† 1
8 F 39 25 Med* & Inf† Inf† 2
9 M 24 10 Inf† Inf† 1
10 M 33 11 Inf† Inf† 2
11 F 37 20 Med* & Inf† Inf† 2
12 F 37 11 Inf† Inf† 2
13 F 43 5 Med* & Inf† Med* & Inf† 2
14 M 28 12 Inf† Inf† 1

* Medial wall

† Inferior wall.

Table 2.
Orbital volume and enophthalmos before operation
Before operation
Patients Volume of affected orbit (cm3) (%)* Volume of unaffected orbit (cm3) Difference of volume (cm3) Enophthalmos (mm)
1 26.22 (24.7%) 21.03 5.19 2.0
2 21.59 (16.94%) 18.46 3.13 1.0
3 21.67 (11.25%) 19.48 2.19 0.5
4 18.04 (3.9%) 17.36 0.68 0.0
5 20.02 (13.86%) 17.58 2.44 1.5
6 21.54 (6.97%) 20.13 1.40 0.5
7 20.06 (8.12%) 18.56 1.51 1.0
8 21.86 (16%) 18.84 3.01 1.0
9 16.88 (0.46%) 16.81 0.08 0.0
10 15.86 (13.87%) 13.93 1.93 2.0
11 19.25 (7.28%) 17.94 1.31 1.0
12 23.64 (2.84%) 22.98 0.65 1.0
13 17.66 (6.18%) 16.63 1.03 1.5
14 18.97 (18.15%) 16.06 2.91 1.0
Mean 20.23±2.77 18.27±2.24 1.96±1.32 1.00±0.62

* Percentage of volume difference between affected orbit and unaffected orbit.

Table 3.
Orbital volume and enophthalmos after operation
After operation
Patients Volume of affected orbit (cm3) (%)* Volume of unaffected orbit (cm3) Difference of volume (cm3) Enophthalmos (mm)
1 24.53 (16.91%) 20.98 3.55 2.0
2 19.85 (8.52%) 18.29 1.56 0.5
3 20.46 (6.75%) 19.17 1.29 0.0
4 17.52 (1.01%) 17.35 0.18 0.0
5 18.93 (8.14%) 17.50 1.42 1.0
6 20.79 (3.16%) 20.15 0.64 0.0
7 19.25 (1.59%) 18.95 0.30 0.0
8 19.29 (3.57%) 18.63 0.66 0.0
9 16.44 (2.04%) 16.11 0.33 0.0
10 14.65 (7.19%) 13.67 0.98 1.0
11 18.78 (7.49%) 17.48 1.31 0.0
12 22.54 (0.99%) 22.32 0.22 0.5
13 16.88 (3.89%) 16.25 0.63 0.0
14 16.93 (5.62%) 16.03 0.90 0.0
Mean 19.06±2.57 18.06±2.24 1.00±0.87 0.36±0.60

* Percentage of volume difference between affected orbit and unaffected orbit.

Table 4.
Mean orbital volume before and after operation
Mean volume of affected orbit Mean volume of unaffected orbit t *p-value
(cm3) (cm3)
Before operation 20.23±2.77 18.27±2.24 5.539 * 0.000
After operation 19.06±2.57 18.06±2.24 4.306 * 0.000

* p-value <0.05: stastically significant.

Table 5.
Mean volume difference of affected orbit before and after operation
Mean volume difference of affected orbit (cm3) (%)† † t *p-value
Before operation 1.96±1.33 (10.75±6.82%) 4.847 * 0.000
After operation 1.00±0.87 (5.49±4.25%)

* p-value <0.05: stastically significant

† Percentage of mean volume difference between affected orbit and unaffected orbit.

TOOLS
Similar articles