Reconstruction of Orbital Medial Wall Fracture with Absorbable and Non-Absorbable Orbital Implant: Comparative Study

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.