Comparison of the Outcomes of Blowout Fracture Repair According to the Orbital Implant

PURPOSE: The clinical outcomes of blowout fracture repair classified by 2 types of orbital implants (Macropore and Medpor) were compared. PROCEDURES: The medical records of 331 patients with orbital fractures that were treated surgically by 1 surgeon at Gachon University Gil hospital, from March 2007 to March 2009, were reviewed. Patients who had diplopia or limited extraocular motion, significant enophthalmos (>2 mm), or a large fracture on a computed tomographic scan (>50% of the floor area) were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received surgical repair using Macropore and those who had surgical repair using Medpor. RESULTS: One hundred six patients had surgical repair using Macropore and 225 patients were surgically treated with Medpor. Both the Macropore (n = 106) and the Medpor groups (n = 225) showed significant clinical improvement. The degree of preoperative/postoperative diplopia and limited extraocular motion was not different between the 2 groups. In addition, there was no difference in the preoperative/postoperative enophthalmos between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both Macropore and Medpor were associated with equally safe and satisfactory patient outcomes without notable complications.