Next Article in Journal
Treatment of Palatal Fractures by Osteosynthesis with 2.0-mm Locking Plates as External Fixator
Previous Article in Journal
Mydriasis during Orbital Floor Fracture Reconstruction: A Novel Diagnostic and Treatment Algorithm
 
 
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction is published by MDPI from Volume 18 Issue 1 (2025). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Sage.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Repair of Orbital Floor Fractures: Our Experience and New Technical Findings

by
Pasquale Piombino
1,
Giorgio Iaconetta
2,
Roberto Ciccarelli
3,
Antonio Romeo
3,
Alessia Spinzia
1,* and
Luigi Califano
1
1
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Pansini n 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Neurological Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Pansini n 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
3
Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Pansini n 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2010, 3(4), 217-221; https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268518
Submission received: 26 February 2010 / Revised: 1 April 2010 / Accepted: 20 August 2010 / Published: 10 November 2010

Abstract

:
We report our experience with the repair of the orbital floor fractures and present new technical findings. We evaluated 30 subjects with pure blowout fractures treated at the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery of the Federico II University of Naples, Italy, between 2005 and 2007. A preoperative examination by computed tomography scans provided classification of the orbital floor fractures into small and large fractures by measurement of the bone defect to choose the appropriate reconstructive implant materials, resorbable or nonresorbable. The clinical follow-up has been performed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. We observed a resolution of preoperative symptoms. The scar was not evident, and there was an absence of postoperative complications. We concluded that the use of resorbable materials for small orbital floor fractures and nonresorbable materials for large orbital floor fractures offers satisfactory results in both functional and aesthetic considerations. Furthermore, the new technical findings allow standardization of the surgical technique to be more accurate, also reducing the economic costs.

Orbital fractures account for 40% of craniofacial injuries; of the four walls of the orbit, the floor, which is extremely thin, is the most frequently injured. According to the pertinent literature, such fractures represent 67 to 84% of cases of orbital fractures [1,2].
Orbital floor fractures can be broadly classified as pure or impure blowout fractures; the first are isolated orbital floor fractures, and the second are also associated with an orbital rim fracture, involving other skeletal elements: zygomatic, frontal, nasoethmoidal, or maxillary bones [3]. A blowout fracture mechanism is not very clear; experimental and clinical studies have generally proposed two main theories: the hydraulic and the buckling mechanisms.
According to the buckling theory, the fracture is produced as a result of transmission of the trauma forces directly to the orbital floor through the orbital rim; the hydraulic mechanism considers that the effects of the kinetic energy of the blow are transferred via the incompressible orbital soft tissue to the floor of the orbit [4,5].
The most common causes of injury are motor vehicle accident, physical assault, and sport-related injuries. More rarely, it can be the result of a fall, gunshot, or industrial accident [3].
Management of orbital floor fractures is still debated and controversial. In the literature, there are many conflicting reports about classifications, type of implant materials, and ideal time to perform surgery.
The aim of this study was to report our experience about the repair of the orbital floor fractures and new technical findings.
The patient series was divided into: (1) pure blowout fractures with large defect and (2) pure blowout fractures with small defect.

Materials and Methods

In the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery of the Federico II University of Naples, Italy, between 2005 and 2007, we observed 44 unilateral fractures of the orbital floor, pure and impure [3]. Of these patients, only 30 with pure blowout fractures were included in our study. They fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical diagnosis of an orbital floor defect; (2) imaging showing an orbital floor defect. The other 14 patients were excluded because they were affected by impure orbital floor fractures (exclusion criteria) with associated facial fractures. Of these, the zygomatic-malar fracture was the most common. The patients were 22 males (73.33%) and 8 females (26.67%) with a mean age of 48.9 years (range 16 to 86 years).
The most common causes of fracture were sports, vehicle accidents, assaults, fireworks and falls. The clinical signs and symptoms were periorbital ecchymosis (75% of cases), subconjunctival hemorrhage (92%), periorbital swelling and/or edema (33%), diplopia (60%), altered ocular motility (25%), infraorbital nerve anesthesia (75%), and dystopia (83%) (enophthalmos in 76% and hypoglobus in 24%; Table 1 and Table 2). Ocular injury was observed in two patients (6%): one had corneal abrasion and the other had subluxation of the crystalline. Only one patient had neurological symptoms represented by epileptic seizure due to brain edema. Three patients had associated extremity fractures, the arm in two cases and shoulder in the third.
All patients were examined by high resolution multislice computed tomography (CT), evaluated with coronal and sagittal images (Figure 1 and Figure 2) of the floor displacement preoperatively. CT scans were performed with 1-mm thickness contiguous slice section under bone window settings. An open source image-processing software (OsiriX, CA) was used in each patient to reconstruct and manipulate CT scan data.
The CT soft tissue window allowed us to identify the protrusion of the orbital fat and the entrapment of the extraocular muscles with special regard to the inferior rectus and presence of foreign bodies. We classified orbital floor fractures in two types: small and large. Our classification is based upon the measurements of the bony defect area performed on the coronal and sagittal scans. The method applied consists of depicting two lines corresponding to the fractured floor, calculating the mean value obtained from the higher and the lower line on each view (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The elliptical area was calculated by multiplying the width (C on coronal view) and the length (S on sagittal view), then multiplying the result by p (Figure 3).
We have classified as ‘‘small’’ the fractures with an area of bony defect less than 3 cm2, and ‘‘large’’ with an area more than 3 cm2. Among the patients, 23 had large fractures and seven had small, according to our classification. The average time interval between accident and surgery was 7 ± 4 days.
In all the 30 patients, the orbital floor was explored via subciliary approach. The skin incision was placed 2 or 3 mm below lash line, from the medial cantus laterally up to the lateral cantus to reach the orbital floor, avoiding the orbicular muscle and preserving the orbital contain. The lower maxilla and orbital floor were always dissected free, preserving the periosteum.
The reconstruction of the floor in the cases with small fractures was performed by using resorbable implants (poly-L-lactide, poly-D, L-lactide, trimethylene carbonate, and polyglycolide). In the large fractures, we used nonresorbable material (high-density porous polyethylene). The resorbable implants we used were 30 × 40 mm in size, and the nonresorbable were 38 × 50 mm in size (Table 3).
Intraoperatively, all patients received a prophylactic dose of intravenous antibiotics (ceftriaxone 2 g) and, postoperatively, for 3 days intramuscular therapy (ceftriaxone 1 g).
The clinical follow-up was performed at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment. At the 6-month follow-up, the patient had a CT scan according to our method described above.
Among the 18 patients who had diplopia before surgery, resolution of symptoms postoperatively was observed in 15 (83.3%) and in the other 3 (16.7%) patients, diplopia disappeared within 3 months. The altered ocular motility was resolved in all eight patients who had this before surgery.
In 18 (81.8%) of the 22 patients, the infraorbital nerve anesthesia was resolved after surgery, three patients (16.6%) had residual hypesthesia, and 1 (1.6%) had residual paresthesia. Enophtalmos resolved postoperatively in 20 (89%) of the 23 patients and hypoglobus in 5 (66%) of the seven patients who had these symptoms before surgery (Table 4).
Postoperative complications were observed in three patients (10%). Two of them had dehiscence of wounds and one had facial infection; all resolved with local and systemic antibiotics and corticosteroid therapy. No technical complications such as improper position of implants, hematomas, or infraorbital or optic nerve injuries were observed. In all 30 patients, the scar was not evident.

Discussion

The orbit protects the visual apparatus through the bone structures, and it acts as a receptacle. Nevertheless, the slightest trauma can provide serious damage. This is why the integrity of the eye and associated tissues must be evaluated accurately and quickly to avoid irreversible damage. The repair of the orbital floor fractures is not without risks, which must be taken into consideration when surgery is decided as a treatment of choice.
A significant facial asymmetry, imaging evidence of the fracture, the age of the patient, and clinical signs and symptoms are extremely important in determining the surgical indications. In most patients, time allows for disappearance of initial edema and hemorrhage that in some cases are the causes of diplopia and enophthalmos. Fractures of the orbit that do not have functional or aesthetic injuries do not need surgical treatment.
In our opinion, the indications for surgery are increased orbital pressure, persisting diplopia, enophthalmos, visual impairment, and hypoanesthesia of the infraorbital nerve. We perform early surgery if there is CT evidence of entrapped muscle or periorbital tissues associated with oculocardiac reflex and also in the presence of symptoms of defects in the orbital structures. In other circumstances, we prefer observing patients for ~7 days because some of deficits can resolve spontaneously [6,7]. In all patients, we use the subciliary surgical approach. We prefer this approach when there is no need to expose the medial or the lateral orbital wall. Furthermore, the scar is not evident [8,9].
The choice of resorbable material is based on its biological features: it is degraded into a-hydroxy acid (natural and no toxic components) and it guarantees a solid buttress for more than 8 weeks. Furthermore, it is easy to shape because of its plasticity, and its threedimensional structure offers high stability. Nonresorbable materials, which we use in the large fractures, are implants with an open-pore structure. This structure allows rapid vascular soft tissue and bone ingrowth that serves to stabilize the implant in relation to the orbital content [10].
Management of orbital fractures is controversial because of the difficulty in evaluating the anatomy of the defect area, and amount of soft tissue herniation. All patients were imaged preoperatively by high-resolution multislice CT, with coronal and sagittal scans (Figure 1 and Figure 2) showing the displacement of the floor.
Using a mathematical formula to calculate the oval area based on sagittal and coronal data obtained by CT scans, we estimate the area of the fracture to be repaired. This method has enabled us to standardize the surgical technique to be more accurate, also reducing the economic costs.
The choice of the material to repair the orbital floor is due to the type of fracture; in fact, in small ones, we use a resorbable sheet. This form of controlled regeneration allows complete healing of the orbital floor and the defect; the involved bone is regenerated with the bioresorbable plate acting as a template during the healing process [11,12]. The resorbable implant simply acts as a scaffold by establishing a supportive structure on which the periorbita will heal. The implant is gradually resorbed and replaced completely by fibrous collagenous tissue [13]. (Figure 4 and Figure 5). In large fractures, we need to use nonresorbable sheets because of the large loss of substance and the herniation of the content of orbit into the maxillary sinus [14]. The porous structure of nonresorbable material allows the soft tissue to incorporate the sheet, so we prevent the formation of a fibrous capsule and a foreign body reaction, with migration or extrusion, and resistance to infection (Figure 6 and Figure 7).
Long-term sequelae may be associated with incomplete healing of the fractures and of deformities associated with malaligned fractures, lid tears, persistent pain.

Conclusion

We concluded that the use of resorbable materials for small orbital floor fractures and nonresorbable materials for large orbital floor fractures, in accordance with our classification, provides reliable and reproducible stabilization of orbital wall defects, offering satisfactory results, both functional and aesthetic. Furthermore, this study suggests that our new technical findings allow us to standardize the surgical technique to be more accurate and also reduce the economic costs.

References

  1. Jank, S.; Schuchter, B.; Emshoff, R.; et al. Clinical signs of orbital wall fractures as a function of anatomic location. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003, 96, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Manolidis, S.; Weeks, B.H.; Kirby, M.; Scarlett, M.; Hollier, L. Classification and surgical management of orbital fractures: experience with 111 orbital reconstructions. J Craniofac Surg 2002, 13, 726–737; discussion 738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tong, L.; Bauer, R.J.; Buchman, S.R. A current 10-year retrospective survey of 199 surgically treated orbital floor fractures in a nonurban tertiary care center. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001, 108, 612–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ahmad, F.; Kirkpatrick, N.A.; Lyne, J.; Urdang, M.; Waterhouse, N. Buckling and hydraulic mechanisms in orbital blowout fractures: fact or fiction? J Craniofac Surg 2006, 17, 438–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Punke, C.; Fritsche, A.; Martin, H.; Schmitz, K.P.; Pau, H.W.; Kramp, B. Investigation of the mechanisms involved in isolated orbital floor fracture. Simulation using a finite element model of the human skull. HNO 2007, 55, 938–944. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Burnstine, M.A. Clinical recommendations for repair of isolated orbital floor fractures: an evidence-based analysis. Ophthalmology 2002, 109, 1207–1210; discussion 1210–1211; quiz 1212–1213. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Dietz, A.; Ziegler, C.M.; Dacho, A.; et al. Effectiveness of a new perforated 0.15 mm poly-p-dioxanon-foil versus titaniumdynamic mesh in reconstruction of the orbital floor. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2001, 29, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Converse, J.M. Two plastic operations for repair of orbit following severe trauma and extensive comminuted fracture. Arch Ophthalmol 1944, 31, 323–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Suga, H.; Sugawara, Y.; Uda, H.; Kobayashi, N. The transconjunctival approach for orbital bony surgery: in which cases should it be used? J Craniofac Surg 2004, 15, 454–457. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Villarreal, P.M.; Monje, F.; Morillo, A.J.; Junquera, L.M.; Gonzalez, C.; Barbon, J.J. Porous polyethylene implants in orbital floor reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002, 109, 877–885; discussion 886–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Mutaz, B.H. Biomaterials used on orbital floor fractures for reconstruction via the transconjunctival approach. Oper Tech Plastic Reconstr Surg 2003, 9, 82–86. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rohrich, R.J.; Janis, J.E.; Adams, W.P.J.r. Subciliary versus subtarsal approaches to orbitozygomatic fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003, 111, 1708–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Baumann, A.; Burggasser, G.; Gauss, N.; Ewers, R. Orbital floor reconstruction with an alloplastic resorbable polydioxanone sheet. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002, 31, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Buchel, P.; Rahal, A.; Seto, I.; Iizuka, T. Reconstruction of orbital floor fracture with polyglactin 910/polydioxanon patch (ethisorb): a retrospective study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005, 63, 646–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Computed tomography scan, coronal view with superior and inferior measurements (C) of the bone defect.
Figure 1. Computed tomography scan, coronal view with superior and inferior measurements (C) of the bone defect.
Cmtr 03 00027 g001
Figure 2. Computed tomography scan, sagittal view with superior and inferior measurements (S) of the bone defect.
Figure 2. Computed tomography scan, sagittal view with superior and inferior measurements (S) of the bone defect.
Cmtr 03 00027 g002
Figure 3. Schematic drawing of the orbital floor defect measurements that we evaluate using the radiological data based on coronal (C) and sagittal (S) views, used to obtain the area of the fracture, according to the mathematical formula (width × length × π).
Figure 3. Schematic drawing of the orbital floor defect measurements that we evaluate using the radiological data based on coronal (C) and sagittal (S) views, used to obtain the area of the fracture, according to the mathematical formula (width × length × π).
Cmtr 03 00027 g003
Figure 4. The resorbable implant adapted to the small bony defect using a template based on computed tomography data and intraoperative view.
Figure 4. The resorbable implant adapted to the small bony defect using a template based on computed tomography data and intraoperative view.
Cmtr 03 00027 g004
Figure 5. The resorbable implant placed to repair the fractured floor.
Figure 5. The resorbable implant placed to repair the fractured floor.
Cmtr 03 00027 g005
Figure 6. The nonresorbable implant adapted to the large bony defect using a template based on computed tomography data and intraoperative view.
Figure 6. The nonresorbable implant adapted to the large bony defect using a template based on computed tomography data and intraoperative view.
Cmtr 03 00027 g006
Figure 7. The nonresorbable implant placed to repair the large fractured floor.
Figure 7. The nonresorbable implant placed to repair the large fractured floor.
Cmtr 03 00027 g007
Table 1. Preoperative Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms.
Table 1. Preoperative Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms.
Ophthalmic Signs and SymptomsPatients
Periorbital ecchymosis (%)75
Subconjunctival hemorrhage (%)92
Periorbital swelling and/or edema (%)33
Diplopia, n (%)*18 (60)
Altered ocular motility, n (%)*8 (25)
Infraorbital nerve anesthesia, n (%)*22 (75)
Enophthalmos, n (%)*23 (76)
Hypoglobus, n (%)*7 (24)
*Inclusion criteria.
Table 2. Preoperative Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms.
Table 2. Preoperative Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms.
Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms*Large DefectSmall Defect
Diplopia162
Altered ocular motility62
Infraorbital nerve anesthesia184
Enophthalmos212
Hypoglobus52
*All are inclusion criteria.
Table 3. Summary of Cases Treated from 2005 to 2007.
Table 3. Summary of Cases Treated from 2005 to 2007.
PatientAgeCauseTypeMaterials
125SportsLargeNonresorbable
283Vehicle accidentSmallResorbable
349AssaultLargeNonresorbable
445Vehicle accidentSmallResorbable
555Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
630SportsSmallResorbable
739FireworksLargeNonresorbable
856Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
916SportsLargeNonresorbable
1032AssaultLargeNonresorbable
1145SportsLargeNonresorbable
1236Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
1323Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
1463Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
1539AssaultLargeNonresorbable
1644Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
1727SportsLargeNonresorbable
1886FallLargeNonresorbable
1927Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
2076FallSmallResorbable
2165AssaultLargeNonresorbable
2248Vehicle accidentSmallResorbable
2367AssaultLargeNonresorbable
2452Vehicle accidentSmallResorbable
2545SportsLargeNonresorbable
2671Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
2758Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
2857Vehicle accidentLargeNonresorbable
2961AssaultSmallResorbable
3049SportsLargeNonresorbable
Table 4. Postoperative Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms.
Table 4. Postoperative Ophthalmic Signs and Symptoms.
Ophthalmic Signs and SymptomsPreoperativePostoperative
Overall
     Diplopia180
     Altered ocular motility80
     Infraorbital nerve anesthesia224
     Enophthalmos233
     Hypoglobus72
Patients with large defects
     Diplopia160
     Altered ocular motility60
     Infraorbital nerve anesthesia183
     Enophthalmos212
     Hypoglobus52
Patients with small defects
     Diplopia20
     Altered ocular motility20
     Infraorbital nerve anesthesia41
     Enophthalmos21
     Hypoglobus20

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Piombino, P.; Iaconetta, G.; Ciccarelli, R.; Romeo, A.; Spinzia, A.; Califano, L. Repair of Orbital Floor Fractures: Our Experience and New Technical Findings. Craniomaxillofac. Trauma Reconstr. 2010, 3, 217-221. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268518

AMA Style

Piombino P, Iaconetta G, Ciccarelli R, Romeo A, Spinzia A, Califano L. Repair of Orbital Floor Fractures: Our Experience and New Technical Findings. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction. 2010; 3(4):217-221. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268518

Chicago/Turabian Style

Piombino, Pasquale, Giorgio Iaconetta, Roberto Ciccarelli, Antonio Romeo, Alessia Spinzia, and Luigi Califano. 2010. "Repair of Orbital Floor Fractures: Our Experience and New Technical Findings" Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction 3, no. 4: 217-221. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268518

APA Style

Piombino, P., Iaconetta, G., Ciccarelli, R., Romeo, A., Spinzia, A., & Califano, L. (2010). Repair of Orbital Floor Fractures: Our Experience and New Technical Findings. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction, 3(4), 217-221. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1268518

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop