PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “orbital implant”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants for orbital floor reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The choice of reconstructive material for orbital floor fractures remains a subject of debate. While autologous bone has historically been considered the "gold standard," alloplastic implants offer potential advantages in reducing surgical morbidity. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of autologous bone grafts versus alloplastic implants in orbital floor reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251140583). Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to August 2025. Randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies evaluating functional outcomes (diplopia, enophthalmos) and complications (ectropion, infection, malposition) were included. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. RESULTS: Twenty studies comprising 2,119 patients were included. Alloplastic implants demonstrated statistically significant superiority in periocular safety, with a reduced risk of postoperative ectropion compared to autologous grafts (RR = 2.245; p = 0.020). In an exploratory sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier study, autologous grafts were associated with a significantly higher risk of implant malposition (RR = 2.074; p = 0.004). Autologous reconstruction was associated with a strong trend toward increased postoperative pain (p = 0.052) and inherent donor-site morbidity. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding infection (p = 0.402), enophthalmos (p = 0.201), or diplopia (p = 0.221). CONCLUSION: Alloplastic implants were associated with a lower risk of ectropion and implant malposition, with functional outcomes statistically comparable to autologous bone. Given the elimination of donor-site morbidity, alloplastic biomaterials represent a safe and effective alternative for orbital floor reconstruction; however, the predominance of retrospective, heterogeneous studies in the current evidence base means these findings should inform, rather than replace, individualized surgical decision-making pending further high-quality randomized trials.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Socket motility assessment of anophthalmic sockets: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Systematically review and categorize the methods used to assess socket and prosthetic motility in anophthalmic patients following enucleation or evisceration. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through September 2024. Studies reporting qualitative or quantitative assessments of motility in anophthalmic sockets or ocular prostheses were included. Motility assessment methods were categorized as qualitative (descriptive or graded clinical evaluation) or quantitative (numerical measurements in millimeters, degrees, or objective tracking systems). RESULTS: Thirty-five studies encompassing 1,819 patients met inclusion criteria. Nineteen studies used qualitative assessment methods, including subjective observation, graded scales based on cardinal gaze positions, or comparison with the contralateral eye. Sixteen studies employed quantitative techniques, such as the Kestenbaum limbus test, Lister perimeter measurements, conjunctival or limbal markings, photographic image analysis, infrared eye-tracking systems, and magnetic search-coil technology. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in measurement techniques, reporting standards, timing of assessment, and distinction between socket and prosthetic motility. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variability exists in the methods used to assess motility in anophthalmic sockets, limiting comparability across studies. Establishing standardized, feasible, and reproducible assessment approaches may improve outcome reporting and facilitate meaningful comparisons in future oculoplastic research.

Humans↗