ArticleFrontiers in surgery2026
Malpositioned orbital implants: indications for implant removal and secondary reconstructive techniques.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Malpositioned orbital implants are an underappreciated source of significant postoperative morbidity, often necessitating revision surgery. Decision-making regarding practical frameworks to guide revision remains challenging and is not well standardized or characterized. Objective: To analyze clinical presentations, radiographic failure patterns, multidisciplinary surgical strategies, and outcomes of patients undergoing revision surgery for malpositioned orbital implants. Methods: A single-center retrospective consecutive case series was conducted of patients who underwent removal or replacement of malpositioned orbital implants. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, radiographic findings, surgical approaches, implant management strategies, and postoperative outcomes were reviewed. Most cases were co-managed by plastic/reconstructive and oculoplastic surgeons. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings. Results: Five of seven patients (71.4%) were female, with a median age of 60 years (range 29-78). Diplopia was the most common presenting symptom (5/7, 71.4%) along with pain or swelling (5/7, 71.4%) followed by globe malposition (3/7, 42.9%). CT demonstrated implant protrusion into orbital soft tissue in 4/7 patients (57.1%) and peri-implant inflammatory collections in 3/7 (42.9%). Out of our 7 revision cases, four patients (57.1%) underwent explantation alone, and three (42.9%) underwent secondary reconstruction with custom or semi-custom implants. At follow-up, diplopia improved or resolved in 4/5 affected patients (80%), and pain, swelling, and globe position improved in all symptomatic patients. Conclusion: Malpositioned orbital implants demonstrate heterogeneous failure mechanisms that require individualized surgical management. A multidisciplinary approach can guide decision-making regarding implant removal versus revision of reconstruction, enabling safe revision surgery and favorable clinical outcomes. Additionally, virtual surgical planning and intraoperative navigation are enablers of safe and precise revision orbital surgery.
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.