Journal Browser Advanced Search Help
Journal Browser Advanced search HELP
J Korean Cleft Palate-Craniofac Assoc. 2003 Oct;4(2):107-112. Korean. Original Article.
Park HS , Oh SA .
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Center, Dongdaemun Hospital, Medical College of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. pseyes@dreamwiz.com
Abstract

The aim of the surgical reconstruction of medial orbital wall fracture is to restore the three-dimensional shape and size of the orbital cavity. Many different autologous and alloplastic implants have been used for the reconstruction of medial orbital wall fracture. Recently, titanium mesh has been reported of its advantage over other various implants. As the advantage of the Titanium Mesh Screen(R) in orbital reconstruction was reported in our previous report1, this study is focused on the comparison of the two different types of titanium mesh screen through our experiences. From March 1998 to February 2003, 18 cases of medial orbital wall fracture were surgically repaired. Nine cases were repaired with Titanium Micro Mesh(R)(Stryker Leibinger, USA) and 9 cases with Titanium Mesh screen 1.3(R)(Marthys, USA). Through our experiences, shaping of the Titanium Micro Mesh(R) was as easy as Titanium Mesh Screen 1.3(R). the Titanium Micro Mesh(R) has some advantages over Titanium Mesh Screen 1.3(R); (1) Titanium Micro Mesh(R) was more easily inserted than the Titanium Mesh Screen 1.3(R). (2) The insertion failure by crumbling was less frequent in Titanium Micro Mesh(R) than in Titanium Mesh Screen 1.3(R). (3) Fixation of Titanium Micro Mesh(R) was more secure than that of Titanium Mesh Screen(R). So we are reporting the superiority of the Titanium Micro Mesh(R) to Titanium Mesh Screen 1.3(R) in the reconstruction of medial orbital wall fracture.

Copyright © 2019. Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors.