Orbital Floor Fractures: Treatment and Diagnostics - A Survey Among Swiss, German and Austrian Maxillofacial Units

Thomas Burger,Kathleen Fan, Johannes Brokmeier,Florian M. Thieringer,Britt-Isabelle Berg


Cited 0|Views10
No score
Study Design N/A.Objective This study investigated the different ways of orbital floor reconstruction with special focus on reconstruction materials, imaging modalities (intra-/ post-operative), 3D printing and navigation.Methods The heads of all governmental-run or associated cranio-maxillofacial surgery units in Switzerland, Austria and Germany were asked in person or received an email link for an online survey with 12 questions.Results The return rate was 57%. The most often selected number of reconstructions was between 10 and 50 per year. Resorbable polydioxanone (PDS) foils (41%) and titanium mesh (18 %) were most often used to reconstruct the orbital floor. 31% use 3D Navigation intraoperative. Post-operative imaging was most often performed with CBCT (34.5%) in patients without complications, whereas CT scans were most often performed (63.3%) in patients with persisting complications. In total, 27% stated that they never use preformed orbital plates, and the remaining units use them more or less regularly. 48% have access to a 3D printer and 75% of the respondents use patient specific implants.Conclusions The majority of the participating units prefer to use resorbable material for the reconstruction of the orbital floor defects. 3D printing facilities are not available in the majority of units, but it can be expected that the number of units with 3D printing facilities will rise in the near future.
Translated text
Key words
orbital floor fracture,blow-out fracture,orbital fracture,orbital reconstruction,patient specific implant,printed anatomical model
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined