Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1906  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 76-79  

Titanium mesh versus medpor implant in orbital floor reconstructions: A comparative study


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad, Telangana, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dental Institute RIMS, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, New Horizon Dental College, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
4 Panineeya Mahavidyalaya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Center, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Jyoti Kendra General Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
6 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Submission22-Sep-2020
Date of Decision22-Sep-2020
Date of Acceptance27-Sep-2020
Date of Web Publication05-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Vishnu Gowtham Marella
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Vikarabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_553_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: Treating orbital injuries is interesting and difficult in the facial trauma. The balance in facial proportions and also the facial esthetics are required to achieve an anatomical harmony. Objective: To compare the functional results of individual reconstruction of orbital floor using either titanium mesh or Medpor in terms of various factors. Materials and Methods: There were two study groups including eight subjects with orbital floor fracture, namely A (Medpor) and B (titanium mesh). Various parameters were analyzed postoperatively at intervals of 1 week, 3 week, 6th week, and 3 months after the surgery. Statistical Analysis: Comparison of the different time points with respect to pain scores in the two study groups by Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done. P value was significant in the study Group A with P = 0.0431* and was insignificant in the study Group B with P = 0.1088. Results: All three cases of titanium mesh in orbital floor reconstruction had signs of infection, tenderness, and radiographic proof after 1 week in two subjects and 3 weeks in one patient. Pain was seen in all eight patients 1 week postoperatively. Conclusion: Although orbital reconstruction is a technique sensitive procedure both Medpore and Titanium mesh functions.

Keywords: Medpor, orbital fracture, orbital reconstruction, titanium mesh


How to cite this article:
Marella VG, Rohit, Khetrapal P, Gangasani A, Bhanot R, Uppal A. Titanium mesh versus medpor implant in orbital floor reconstructions: A comparative study. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S1:76-9

How to cite this URL:
Marella VG, Rohit, Khetrapal P, Gangasani A, Bhanot R, Uppal A. Titanium mesh versus medpor implant in orbital floor reconstructions: A comparative study. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 27];13, Suppl S1:76-9. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/5/76/317525




   Introduction Top


Orbital wall fractures are common in facial trauma with a prevalence of around 3%–32%.[1] Due to its complex anatomic structure, we are sometimes unable to visualize minor anatomical details. Etiologic factors are traffic accident, assault, fall, and sports.[1] Such defects cause functional impairment and require reconstruction.[2] To manage the orbital injuries is a difficult task in the facial trauma.[3] Injuries of the face can range from the indistinct blowout fracture following the low velocity trauma, simple blunt, or to the highly complex comminuted orbital fractures, which results from the motor vehicle accidents and the projectiles and thereby these injuries commonly result in destruction of the integrity of orbital skeleton.[4] Such orbital trauma and surrounding facial fractures often result in orbital deformity as well as the incapacitating visual dysfunction.[5] The orbital fracture may lead to the limitation of orbital movement, diplopia, anesthesia or paresthesia, and enophthalmos.[6] The present study aims to evaluate and also compare the titanium mesh and Medpor implant in the orbital floor reconstructions in terms of pain, swelling, enophthalmos, diplopia, subconjunctival hemorrhage, infraorbital paresthesia, graft failure, and infection.


   Materials and Methods Top


The study group included eight subjects with the orbital wall fracture. Each subject has been explained about the procedure to be performed, followed by written informed consent. A detailed case history with particular regard toward the medical history was recorded in a prepared case history proforma. Evaluation methods were visual analog scale, swelling, subconjunctival hemorrhage, diplopia, clinical enophthalmos (Luedde exophthalmometer), infraorbital paresthesia, implant/autograft failure, and infection. Follow-up was done at 1st, 3rd, and 6th week and 3 months after surgery. The inclusion criteria in the present study were subjects with orbital trauma defects, imaging (pre- and post-operative radiographs), and subjects who are medically fit for general anesthesia, whereas the exclusion criteria were subjects with systemic disease contraindicated for general anesthesia, subjects not willing for surgery, and the areas where strength of the graft was not required. The surgical technique for the orbital floor was as follows: the subject was anesthetized using the nasotracheal intubation and an incision for an infraorbital approach. Before infiltration of a vasoconstrictor, the incision line was marked. About 4–6 mm subcutaneous dissection was done toward the inferior orbital rim. For the retraction of the lower lid, tarsorrhaphy suture was used. The fracture site was exposed and the debris was removed. Depending on the extent and site of the defect, titanium mesh and Medpor were placed as per requirement in subperiosteal plane and rigid fixation was done. Nonabsorbable sutures were used in subcuticular motion [Figure 1] and [Figure 2]. The subjects were given with the IV antibiotics for 5 days and followed by the oral for another 5 days. Thorough medicated irrigation was done twice daily for the postoperative period of about 5 days. The subjects were evaluated both intraoperatively and at the intervals of 1st, 3rd, and 6th week and 3 months after surgery.
Figure 1: Pre-, intra-, and postoperative pictures of the orbital reconstruction with titanium mesh

Click here to view
Figure 2: Pre-, intra-, and postoperative pictures of the orbital reconstruction with Medpor

Click here to view



   Results Top


The clinical as well as radiographic investigations with three-dimensional sections of paranasal sinus view along with the waters view or occipitomental view showed herniation of orbital fat. Thereby, all the eight subjects were planned for open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and reconstruction with the titanium mesh (3 subjects) and Medpor (5 subjects) for the orbital floor defects. All the subjects were followed up for 3 months for pain, swelling, subconjunctival hemorrhage, enophthalmos, infraorbital paresthesia, diplopia, infection, and extrusion of graft. Out of 3 cases of titanium mesh in orbital floor reconstruction all three cases had infection and tenderness. In all the eight subjects, pain was seen 1 week postoperatively. The comparison of different time points with respect to pain scores in the two study Groups A (Medpor) and B (titanium mesh) by Wilcoxon matched pairs test was done. The P value was significant in the study Group A with P = 0.0431* and was insignificant in the study Group B with P = 0.1088. A (*P < 0.05) [Table 1]. The comparison of different time points with respect to enophthalmos scores in the two study Groups A (Medpor) with 5 cases and B (titanium mesh) with 3 cases was done by Wilcoxon matched pairs test. The P value was significant in the study Group A with P = 0.0431* and was insignificant in the study Group B with P = 0.1088. A (*P < 0.05) [Table 1]. Swelling was present 1 week postoperatively in four patients out of five subjects in Group A and 2 subjects out of three subjects in Group B. Swelling was absent in both the groups at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively. Subconjunctival hemorrhage was present 1 week postoperatively in four out of five subjects in Group A and 3 out of three subjects in Group B. Swelling was absent in both the groups at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Diplopia was present 1 week postoperatively in three subjects in Group A out of five subjects and none of the three subjects showed signs of diplopia in Group B. Diplopia was absent in both the groups at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively. Infraorbital paresthesia was present 1 week postoperatively in two subjects out of five subjects in Group A and one subject out of three subjects in Group B. Infraorbital paresthesia was absent in both the groups at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Infection was present for all in Group B and 1 week postoperatively in two subjects and 6 weeks postoperatively in 1 subject in Group B. None of the subjects in Group A showed any signs of infection at 1 week, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively. None of the groups shown implant failure at different time points [Table 2].
Table 1: Comparison of different time points with respect to pain scores (i) and to enophthalmos (mm) (ii) in the two study groups (a and b) by Wilcoxon matched pairs test

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison two groups (a and b) with respect to status of implant failure at different time points

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The facial trauma often includes the orbital fracture.[7] However, there is no consensus for most of the effective treatment.[8] Orbital fractures can also occur in high-velocity injuries such as traffic accidents or accidental falls.[9],[10] Orbital floor fractures the most in such cases.[11] The fracture of orbital floor fractures may cause functional as well as the cosmetic problems such as diplopia, enophthalmos, and residual dystopia. Important is to regain function with synthetic implants or bone grafts.[12] There are various biomaterials for the reconstruction of the original bony contour as well as to restore the proper orbital volume. The autogenous, allogenic grafts, or alloplastic implants are used for the reconstruction. Furthermore, various grafts such as contralateral coronoid process and wall of the antrum have also been used.[13] Recently, in cases of orbital fracture, good results have been shown by the metallic implants, such as titanium. Titanium has good compatibility with the tissues. Titanium is visible in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.[13],[14] It undergoes osseointegration on a molecular level without developing intervening fibrous tissue.[13],[14] Further studies are needed with larger sample size for a generalized statements.


   Conclusion Top


Both Medpor and titanium mesh function are well for internal reconstruction with minimal complication for orbital floor fracture.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Oliver JD, Saba ES, Gupta N, Hendricks TM, Singh DJ. Alloplastic reconstruction of orbital floor fractures: A systematic review and pooled outcomes analysis. Eur J Plast Surg 2020;43:109-16.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Imola MJ, Ducic Y, Adelson RT. The secondary correction of post-traumatic craniofacial deformities. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008;139:654-60.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Chen CT, Pan CH, Chen CH, Shyu VB, Wu JC, Kang GC. Clinical outcomes for minimally invasive primary and secondary orbital reconstruction using an advanced synergistic combination of navigation and endoscopy. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018;71:90-100.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Choudhry OJ, Christiano LD, Arnaout O, Adel JG, Liu JK. Reconstruction of pterional defects after frontotemporal and orbitozygomatic craniotomy using Medpor Titan implant: Cosmetic results in 98 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013;115:1716-20.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Raisian S, Fallahi HR, Khiabani KS, Heidarizadeh M, Azdoo S. Customized titanium mesh based on the 3D printed model vs. manual intraoperative bending of titanium mesh for reconstructing of orbital bone fracture: A randomized clinical trial. Rev Recent Clin Trials 2017;12:154-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ramphul A, Hoffman G. Does preoperative diplopia determine the incidence of postoperative diplopia after repair of orbital floor fracture? An institutional review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017;75:565-75.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Anand L, Sealey C. Orbital fractures treated in Auckland from 2010 to 2015: Review of patient outcomes. N Z Med J 2017;130:21-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Mims MM, Wang EW. Cost analysis of implants in the surgical repair of orbital floor fractures. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2020;129:456-61.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Yang JR, Liao HT. Functional and aesthetic outcome of extensive orbital floor and medial wall fracture via navigation and endoscope-assisted reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2019;82:S77-85.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Purnell CA, Vaca EE, Ellis MF. Orbital fracture reconstruction using prebent, anatomic titanium plates: Technical tips to avoid complications. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:e515-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Tanaskovic N, Trajkovski B, Perić Kačarević Ž, Rider PM, Houshmand A, Xiong X, et al. Periorbital reconstruction by “periorbital patch” technique using a pericardium-based collagen membrane and titanium mesh. Materials (Basel) 2019;12:2343-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Pang SSY, Fang C, Chan JYW. Application of three-dimensional printing technology in orbital floor fracture reconstruction. Trauma Case Rep 2018;17:23-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Aamer MM, Hassan NE, Ragab HR. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of the use of antero-lateral wall of maxillary sinus for reconstruction of orbital floor defect. Alexandria Dental Journal, 43,2,2018,13-18. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2018.57889.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Azzi J, Azzi AJ, Cugno S. Resorbable material for pediatric orbital floor reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg 2018;29:1693-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed368    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal