Use of a Low Profile Titanium Mesh in Orbital Reconstruction
NCT ID: NCT01432964
Last Updated: 2011-09-13
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
27 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2008-12-31
2010-10-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Calvarial bone can be difficult to mould and to adapt to the form and size of the orbital lesion. In addition, donor site morbidity cannot be disregarded. Orbital reconstruction mesh on the other hand is always available and easier to apply. There are however important requirements for these meshes, such as biocompatibility, excellent stability, optimal adaptability and patient comfort. Recently, the company Medartis developed a titanium mesh featuring a low profile. In order to regain normal function, normal anatomy has to be re-established. It therefore seemed reasonable to assess an implant, which would facilitate orbital reconstruction without disturbing normal anatomy by its size, profile height or properties.
The purpose of this study was to assess the use and accuracy of the low profile titanium mesh for primary internal orbital reconstruction.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Evaluating The Prebent Titanium Mesh for Zygomatico-Orbital Reconstruction in Twelve Patients Measuring Multiple Ophthalmologic Parameters, Aesthetic Results, Orbital Volume, Area of Bone Defect, Layout Angle, Gab Length and The Accuracy of Reconstruction
NCT07103187
Intra-operative (IO) Navigation and IO-CBCT for 3D Orbital Reconstruction
NCT03057405
Reconstruction of the Orbit With a Bioresorbable Polycaprolactone Implant
NCT00233922
Correction of Enophthalmos and Orbital Volume Using Pre-bent Mesh Versus 3d Printed Onlay in Orbital Fracture Cases
NCT04271137
Application of CAD-CAM Technology in Orbital Bone Reconstruction
NCT05438784
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Extensive bone loss after orbital trauma requires reconstruction to preserve ocular function and aesthetics. The optimal material for orbital reconstruction remains controversial. Today a multitude of both autogenous and alloplastic materials have been used for orbital reconstruction, including methylmethacrylate, Teflon, silicone, Supramid, Marlex, Silastic, gelatin film, bioactive glas, bone and cartilage (Haug 1999). The use of alloplastic materials has been tempered by complications such as infection, displacement and extrusion, fistula and cyst formation. During the past two decades, autogenous bone grafts have become increasingly popular for orbital reconstruction. Unfortunately, problems with bone grafts can occur and include unpredictable rates of bone resorption and the risk of subsequent dystopia or delayed enophthalmos, donor site complication, time consumption with harvesting and variable graft thickness and irregularities along with difficulty in graft contouring (Park 2001). These problems have revived interest in alloplastic alternatives, particularly in titanium and its alloys (Park 2001). Titanium shows a low infection rate, related in part to its excellent biocompatibility, which manifests as osseointegration. This circumstance is thought to lessen the rate of infection.
During the past decade, different studies have examined a titanium meshes for orbital repair. Plates used in these studies demonstrate a minimum profile height of 0.25mm.
Objective
Assess the use and accuracy of the low profile titanium mesh for primary internal orbital reconstruction
Methods
Clinical assessment prior to operation by a maxillofacial surgeon with regards to bone and soft tissue lesions as well as concomitant injuries. An ophthalmologist then assessed eye lesions and quantified eye mobility (in mm), bulb positioning (Hertel's exophthalmometry, in mm) as well as the field of binocular vision (Goldmann perimetry, in % of the total).
Preoperative 1mm CT-scans were obtained to analyse size and location of the defect as well as extend of muscle entrapment. The fractures were classified according to the scores introduced by Jaquiery(Jaquiery 2007).
Follow up by at 2, 6 and 12 weeks after the operation (assessments see above), including postoperative CT-scan within 12 weeks. Volume analysis of CT comparing the two orbits (OsiriX Medical Image Software (Version 3.7.1, www.osirix-viewer.com).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
1
Adult patients (\>18 years) presenting a unilateral orbital blow-out or blow-in fracture of ≥ 2.0cm2, causing an actual or expected functional or aesthetical deficit.
Orbital revision surgery
Surgical revisions were performed under general anaesthesia. The orbital floor was routinely exposed via a transconjunctival incision. In patients with involvement of the medial wall, a combined transconjunctival-transcaruncular approach was used. Herniated or incarcerated tissue was then complete repositioned. Stable borders around the bony defect in the orbital floor were exposed. The aluminium template was pre-bend and controlled in situ. Type and size of mesh were chosen and adjustments performed, as needed. Following the bending of the titanium mesh according to the template, it was inserted and fixed with 1.5mm screws. Alternatively the mesh could be preformed, using a sterilized skull model to shape and contour it to a normal orbit. Finally the eye bulb mobility was controlled using fine forceps (forced duction test) and the wound closed (Vicryl 5/0 rapid; optional).
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Orbital revision surgery
Surgical revisions were performed under general anaesthesia. The orbital floor was routinely exposed via a transconjunctival incision. In patients with involvement of the medial wall, a combined transconjunctival-transcaruncular approach was used. Herniated or incarcerated tissue was then complete repositioned. Stable borders around the bony defect in the orbital floor were exposed. The aluminium template was pre-bend and controlled in situ. Type and size of mesh were chosen and adjustments performed, as needed. Following the bending of the titanium mesh according to the template, it was inserted and fixed with 1.5mm screws. Alternatively the mesh could be preformed, using a sterilized skull model to shape and contour it to a normal orbit. Finally the eye bulb mobility was controlled using fine forceps (forced duction test) and the wound closed (Vicryl 5/0 rapid; optional).
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* presenting a unilateral orbital blow-out or blow-in fracture of ≥ 2.0cm2, causing an actual or expected functional or aesthetical deficit
* has to be operated within two weeks of trauma
Exclusion Criteria
* individuals, who, according to ophthalmologists, should not have a surgical treatment
* patients who were unable to adequately understand written or oral information in German or French
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
International Bone Research Association
OTHER
Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Olivier Lieger, MD, DMD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland
Tateyuki Iizuka, MD, DDS, PhD
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Bern University Hospital
Bern, , Switzerland
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Ellis E 3rd, el-Attar A, Moos KF. An analysis of 2,067 cases of zygomatico-orbital fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1985 Jun;43(6):417-28. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(85)80049-5.
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 May;63(5):646-50. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2004.11.013.
Lieger O, Schaller B, Zix J, Kellner F, Iizuka T. Repair of orbital floor fractures using bioresorbable poly-L/DL-lactide plates. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2010 Nov-Dec;12(6):399-404. doi: 10.1001/archfacial.2010.91.
Haug RH, Nuveen E, Bredbenner T. An evaluation of the support provided by common internal orbital reconstruction materials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1999 May;57(5):564-70. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(99)90076-9.
Park HS, Kim YK, Yoon CH. Various applications of titanium mesh screen implant to orbital wall fractures. J Craniofac Surg. 2001 Nov;12(6):555-60. doi: 10.1097/00001665-200111000-00010.
Jaquiery C, Aeppli C, Cornelius P, Palmowsky A, Kunz C, Hammer B. Reconstruction of orbital wall defects: critical review of 72 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Mar;36(3):193-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.11.002. Epub 2007 Jan 22.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
0709-0050
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: secondary_id
011/09
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.