Primary reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific titanium milled implants: the Helsinki protocol

Preoperative virtual planning and the use of patient-specific implants enable exact reconstruction of orbital fractures. We present our results and experience of reconstruction of isolated orbital fractures with patient-specific implants, according to the Helsinki protocol, in 15 patients who were f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kärkkäinen, M. (Author), Mesimäki, K. (Author), Snäll, J. (Author), Wilkman, T. (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Churchill Livingstone 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03044nam a2200721Ia 4500
001 10.1016-j.bjoms.2018.08.008
008 220706s2018 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 02664356 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Primary reconstruction of orbital fractures using patient-specific titanium milled implants: the Helsinki protocol 
260 0 |b Churchill Livingstone  |c 2018 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.08.008 
520 3 |a Preoperative virtual planning and the use of patient-specific implants enable exact reconstruction of orbital fractures. We present our results and experience of reconstruction of isolated orbital fractures with patient-specific implants, according to the Helsinki protocol, in 15 patients who were followed up for at least three months postoperatively. The mean (range) difference between the positions of virtually planned, and postoperative, implants was 1.9 (0.5–5.6) mm. The postoperative volume of the fractured orbit was 1.34 ml less than that of the non-fractured side, but this was not clinically relevant. None of the patients required reoperation and none had any implant-related complications during follow up. We conclude that patient-specific implants are an adaptable and reliable treatment for primary orbital trauma, and that the Helsinki protocol may have wider applications in the treatment of facial fractures. © 2018 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 
650 0 4 |a adult 
650 0 4 |a Adult 
650 0 4 |a aged 
650 0 4 |a Aged 
650 0 4 |a Article 
650 0 4 |a clinical article 
650 0 4 |a cohort analysis 
650 0 4 |a computer assisted tomography 
650 0 4 |a devices 
650 0 4 |a diagnostic imaging 
650 0 4 |a diplopia 
650 0 4 |a facial fracture 
650 0 4 |a female 
650 0 4 |a Female 
650 0 4 |a follow up 
650 0 4 |a Fracture Fixation, Internal 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a male 
650 0 4 |a Male 
650 0 4 |a middle aged 
650 0 4 |a Middle Aged 
650 0 4 |a orbit fracture 
650 0 4 |a orbit implant 
650 0 4 |a orbit reconstruction 
650 0 4 |a orbital fracture 
650 0 4 |a Orbital Fractures 
650 0 4 |a Orbital Implants 
650 0 4 |a osteosynthesis 
650 0 4 |a patient specific implant 
650 0 4 |a prosthesis design 
650 0 4 |a Prosthesis Design 
650 0 4 |a prosthesis dislocation 
650 0 4 |a reoperation 
650 0 4 |a Retrospective Studies 
650 0 4 |a retrospective study 
650 0 4 |a strabismus 
650 0 4 |a titanium 
650 0 4 |a Titanium 
650 0 4 |a Tomography, X-Ray Computed 
650 0 4 |a treatment outcome 
650 0 4 |a Treatment Outcome 
650 0 4 |a virtual planning 
650 0 4 |a visual field 
650 0 4 |a x-ray computed tomography 
650 0 4 |a young adult 
700 1 |a Kärkkäinen, M.  |e author 
700 1 |a Mesimäki, K.  |e author 
700 1 |a Snäll, J.  |e author 
700 1 |a Wilkman, T.  |e author 
773 |t British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery