ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2025
Long-term clinical outcomes of isolated orbital floor fracture reconstruction using nonresorbable implants.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants for orbital floor reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of In-House 3D-Printed Models on Re-Operation Rates and Volumetric Precision in Orbital Floor Reconstruction: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Reconstructive Materials in Paediatric Orbital Fractures: A Systematic Review.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2026Review
- Evaluation of Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Implants in Orbital Fracture Reconstruction: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere are no universally established guidelines for material selection in orbital wall fracture reconstruction. With an increasing preference for permanent implants, this study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of three different non-resorbable materials in reconstructing isolated orbital floor fractures.
designA retrospective, interventional comparative study.
methodsThe medical records of patients with unilateral pure orbital floor fractures who underwent orbital reconstruction using non-resorbable alloplastic implants at two tertiary referral centers between January 2017 to December 2021 were reviewed. Cases with non-pure orbital floor blowout fractures and/or <2 years of follow-up were excluded. Patients were separated into three groups according to the implant material type: porous polyethylene (PPE) sheet, polypropylene (PP) mesh, and titanium (Ti) mesh. These groups were then retrospectively analyzed for clinical outcomes, implant-related complications, and patient's satisfaction.
resultsSixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-four patients (36.36%) received PPE sheets, 20 patients (30.3%) had PP mesh, and 22 patients (33.33%) received Ti mesh. At the 6-month postoperative visit, nine patients (40.9%) in the Ti mesh group experienced postoperative diplopia compared to six patients (30.0%) in the PP group and one patient (4.2%) in the PPE group (P < 0.047). Following the initial 6-month postoperative period, the PP group had more frequent postoperative enophthalmos compared to the other 2 groups. The total ocular motility restriction score was significantly lower in the Ti mesh group compared to the other 2 groups at all follow-up visits. Patient's satisfaction was significantly higher in the PPE group (median = 10, IQR = 1) compared to the PP (median = 8.5, IQR = 3) and Ti groups (median = 8, IQR = 3), P < 0.001. Reoperation was needed in seven patients (31.8%) in the Ti group, two patients (10%) in the PP group, and none in the PPE group.
conclusionsThe use of PPE orbital implants for the repair of isolated orbital floor fracture provides better long-term clinical outcomes compared to PP or Ti mesh and reduces the need for reoperation across all fracture sizes. Ti mesh has been associated with a higher frequency of unfavorable clinical outcomes and implant removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.