PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of orbital floor reconstruction with two types of orbital implants and assess patients\' quality of life.
METHODS: 39 sequential patients with clinical and radiological evidence of orbital floor fracture, presenting diplopia, enophthalmos, paraesthesia or a post traumatic residual orbital deformity were included in this study and randomised for orbital floor reconstruction using porous polyethylene sheet (Biopore™) or preshaped titanium mesh on a 3D model. Their pre and postoperative quality of life were compared. Success rate was assessed and scored with a minimum of zero (none) and a maximum of ten (excellent) for improvement in the signs of diplopia, enophthalmos, hypoglobus, paraesthesia and aesthetics.
RESULTS: Both QOL scores and Success score was greater in cases which reconstruction of orbital floor was performed with preshaped titanium mesh as compared to those with Biopore™.
CONCLUSIONS: Preshaped titanium mesh shows better results than reconstruction with Biopore™. However a large sample size and a long term follow up is needed for generating the best evidence. Quality of life extensively improves after orbital floor reconstruction motivating the patients desire to live.
METHODS: 39 sequential patients with clinical and radiological evidence of orbital floor fracture, presenting diplopia, enophthalmos, paraesthesia or a post traumatic residual orbital deformity were included in this study and randomised for orbital floor reconstruction using porous polyethylene sheet (Biopore™) or preshaped titanium mesh on a 3D model. Their pre and postoperative quality of life were compared. Success rate was assessed and scored with a minimum of zero (none) and a maximum of ten (excellent) for improvement in the signs of diplopia, enophthalmos, hypoglobus, paraesthesia and aesthetics.
RESULTS: Both QOL scores and Success score was greater in cases which reconstruction of orbital floor was performed with preshaped titanium mesh as compared to those with Biopore™.
CONCLUSIONS: Preshaped titanium mesh shows better results than reconstruction with Biopore™. However a large sample size and a long term follow up is needed for generating the best evidence. Quality of life extensively improves after orbital floor reconstruction motivating the patients desire to live.
摘要：
目的：本研究的目的是分析两种眼眶植入物重建眼眶底的结果，并评估患者的生活质量。
方法：39例序贯患者有眼眶底骨折的临床和放射学证据，呈现复视，眼球内陷,本研究包括感觉异常或创伤后残余眼眶畸形，并使用多孔聚乙烯片（Biopore™）或3D模型上的预成型钛网随机进行眶底重建。比较两组患者术前、术后生活质量。评估成功率，并以最小为零（无）和最大为十（优）的评分，以改善复视迹象。眼球内陷,俯卧撑,异感和美学。
结果：与Biopore™相比，在使用预成型钛网进行眶底重建的情况下，QOL评分和成功评分均较高。
结论：预成型钛网显示出比Biopore™重建更好的结果。然而，需要大样本量和长期随访才能产生最佳证据。眶底重建后，生活质量得到了广泛改善，激发了患者的生活欲望。
方法：39例序贯患者有眼眶底骨折的临床和放射学证据，呈现复视，眼球内陷,本研究包括感觉异常或创伤后残余眼眶畸形，并使用多孔聚乙烯片（Biopore™）或3D模型上的预成型钛网随机进行眶底重建。比较两组患者术前、术后生活质量。评估成功率，并以最小为零（无）和最大为十（优）的评分，以改善复视迹象。眼球内陷,俯卧撑,异感和美学。
结果：与Biopore™相比，在使用预成型钛网进行眶底重建的情况下，QOL评分和成功评分均较高。
结论：预成型钛网显示出比Biopore™重建更好的结果。然而，需要大样本量和长期随访才能产生最佳证据。眶底重建后，生活质量得到了广泛改善，激发了患者的生活欲望。
