Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
What Is the Incidence of Implant Malpositioning and Revision Surgery After Orbital Repair?
Schlittler, Fabian; Schmidli, Andre; Wagner, Franca; Michel, Chantal; Mottini, Matthias; Lieger, Olivier.
Afiliación
  • Schlittler F; Consultant, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Bern, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Schmidli A; Private Practitioner, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Bern, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Wagner F; Consultant, Department of Neuroradiology, University of Bern, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Michel C; Consultant, University Hospital of Child and Adolescence Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Mottini M; Consultant, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Bern, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
  • Lieger O; Consultant, Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Bern, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: contact@olivierlieger.ch.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg ; 76(1): 146-153, 2018 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28916325
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Postoperative radiographic examinations are the gold standard in maxillofacial surgery, except in orbital reconstruction. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the frequency of implant malposition and revision operation after orbital repair. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a level I trauma center at the University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland. To assess the incidence of malpositioning, a qualitative analysis of postoperative computed tomography scans, as well as comparative volumetric measurements of the orbits, was conducted. Furthermore, the incidence of and reason for secondary revision procedures were evaluated.

RESULTS:

From September 2008 to December 2015, a total of 71 emergency patients (73 implants) were treated at the Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery with a titanium mesh (48 male patients; mean age, 56 years). The implant position was rated as poor in 17 cases (23%) by the qualitative analysis. The volumetric assessment showed no significant results. Revision intervention was needed in 12 patients (17%) because of an unsuccessful treatment outcome causing relevant clinical symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS:

Patients with large orbital defects who require surgical treatment with a titanium mesh are at risk of implant malposition. Because in this study, poor positioning of the implant is the main reason for surgical revision, we postulate that a postoperative radiographic control should be obtained routinely. Only then can long-term sequelae due to inadequate reconstruction be avoided.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Fracturas Orbitales / Falla de Prótesis / Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Implantes Orbitales Tipo de estudio: Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Fracturas Orbitales / Falla de Prótesis / Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Implantes Orbitales Tipo de estudio: Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza