Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 26, 2026
Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures
Published on: May 16, 2025
Safety of silastic sheet for orbital wall reconstruction
Seong June Moon1, Hyun Suk Suh1, Bo Young Park1
1Department of Plastic Surgery, Ewha Womans University Hospital, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Background:
Many implants are being used for the reconstruction of orbital wall fractures. The effect of the choice of implant for the reconstruction of an orbital wall fracture on the surgical outcome is under debate. The purpose of this article is to compare the outcomes of orbital wall reconstruction of small orbital wall fractures on the basis of the implants used.
Methods:
The authors conducted a retrospective study using electronic databases. Between March 2001 and December 2012, 461 patients with orbital wall fractures were included in this study. Among them, 431 patients in whom the fracture size was less than 300 mm(2) were analyzed. The fracture size was calculated using computed tomography scans of the orbit in the sagittal and coronal images. Cases in which the fracture size was less than 300 mm(2) were included in this study.
Results:
One hundred and twenty-nine patients were treated with silastic sheets; 238 patients were treated with titanium meshes; and absorbable meshes were used in the case of 64 patients. Overall, 13 patients required revision, and the revision rate was 3.0%. The revision rate of the silastic sheet group was 5.4%. In the multivariable analysis, the revision rate of the group reconstructed with silastic sheets was highly statistically significant (P=0.043, odds ratio=3.65). However, other factors such as age, sex, fracture type, and fracture size were not significant.
Conclusions:
Reconstruction of orbital wall fractures with silastic sheets may cause more complications than that with other materials such as titanium meshes and absorbable meshes.
