Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 28, 2025
Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Orbital Fractures
Published on: May 16, 2025
Does Integration of Technology and Customization of Implants Produce Better Outcomes in Post-Traumatic Orbital
Varad Rajendra Saptarshi1, Srivalli Natarajan2, Padmakar Sudhakar Baviskar3
1Resident, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, MGM Dental College & Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Purpose:
This review aims to compare and evaluate the outcomes achieved by integrating technological aids and the influence of different implant designs in the reconstruction of post-traumatic orbital defects.
Methods:
Electronic searches of the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases until March 2023 were conducted. Clinical controlled trials, observational studies, cohort studies, and retrospective studies were identified and included. The predictor variables were the integration of technological aids namely, computer-assisted surgical planning, mirror image overlay, and intraoperative navigation with the utilization of different orbital implant designs (standard orbital meshes, preformed implants, prebent implants, and patient-specific implant [PSI]) during post-traumatic orbital reconstruction. The primary outcome variables were orbital volume, diplopia, and enophthalmos. Weighted or mean difference and risk ratios at 95% confidence intervals were calculated, where P ＜ .05 was considered significant and a random effects model was adopted.
Results:
This review included 7 studies with 560 participants. The results indicate that the difference in postoperative orbital volume between affected and nonaffected eye showed no statistically significant difference between PSI and prebent group (mean difference, -0.41 P = .28, I2 = 46%). PSI group resulted in diplopia 0.71-fold less than that of the standard orbital mesh group but was not statistically significant (P = .15). Standard orbital mesh group is 0.30 times at higher risk of developing enophthalmos as compared to PSI group (P = .010). The literature suggests PSIs are preferred for patients with large defects (Jaquiéry's III-IV), whereas prebent implants are equally effective as PSIs in patients with preserved infraorbital buttress and retrobulbar bulge.
Conclusion:
PSIs are associated with improved outcomes, especially for correcting enophthalmos. The data suggests the potential efficacy of prebent implants and PSIs in orbital volume corrections. There is a lack of randomized studies. This review should serve as a recommendation for further studies to contribute to the existing literature.
