Comparison of the outcomes of blowout fracture repair according to the orbital implant.

PURPOSE

The clinical outcomes of blowout fracture repair classified by 2 types of orbital implants (Macropore and Medpor) were compared.

PROCEDURES

The medical records of 331 patients with orbital fractures that were treated surgically by 1 surgeon at Gachon University Gil hospital, from March 2007 to March 2009, were reviewed. Patients who had diplopia or limited extraocular motion, significant enophthalmos (>2 mm), or a large fracture on a computed tomographic scan (>50% of the floor area) were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received surgical repair using Macropore and those who had surgical repair using Medpor.

RESULTS

One hundred six patients had surgical repair using Macropore and 225 patients were surgically treated with Medpor. Both the Macropore (n = 106) and the Medpor groups (n = 225) showed significant clinical improvement. The degree of preoperative/postoperative diplopia and limited extraocular motion was not different between the 2 groups. In addition, there was no difference in the preoperative/postoperative enophthalmos between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Macropore and Medpor were associated with equally safe and satisfactory patient outcomes without notable complications.