الفهرس 
SUMMARYOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 122 |  |  |
| | | from | 122 | | |
Abstract
The present study was conducted to clinically evaluate the use of prolene mesh in reconstruction of orbital floor fractures and to determine if the mesh can be considered as a useful method to correct diplopia enophthalmos and restriction in ocular mobility.
Eight patients with orbital floor fracture either unilateral or bilateral and either isolated orbital floor fracture or associated with other maxillofacial fractures were selected for this study proved that the patients were complaining of either diplopia or enophthalmos or restriction in ocular mobility.
Both clinical and radiographic examinations were performed for each patient. Clinically, each patient was examined to detect if the patient has diplopia, enophthalmos or restriction in ocular movements. Before maxillofacial evaluation each patient underwent ophthalmological evaluation to detect if the patient was in need of any urgent intervention like monocular diplopia which indicates that the patient may have lens dislocation or retinal detachment, or if the patient had retrobulbar haemorrhage which needs urgent intervention to evacuate this hematoma by performing lateral canthotomy cantholysis and giving the patient mega dose of corticosteroids. Clinical evaluation was performed also to detect if the patient had any associated injuries either in facial skeleton or outside the facial skeleton.
Radiographic examination was performed to detect fractures that can’t be detected clinically. Radiographic examination was in the form CT scan which considered to be the corner stone in diagnosis of orbital floor fractures.
All the patients were operated upon for reconstruction of the orbital floor defects by prolene mesh. A subciliary approach was done to expose the infraorbital rim and to explore the orbital floor.
Forced duction test was done to detect muscle entrapment and then the herniated tissues were released.
The prolene mesh was cut to a suitable size to fit the defect in the orbital floor, after good adaptation of the mesh in place the wound was closed in two layers.
Clinical results
Clinical evaluation was performed for the patients 3 days postoperatively then once weekly for two weeks and then monthly for 6months. The parameters to be evaluated were ocular mobility, enophthalmos and diplopia and compared with the preoperative status.
All the patients of preoperative diplopia showed significant improvement postoperatively. Five patients out of seven with preoperative ocular restriction showed improvement in the postoperative follow up visits. Four patients with preoperative enophthalmos Showed improvement in postoperative follow up visits. Regarding the patient with ocular dystopia there was a complete resolution of dystopia postoperatively. One patient out of eight didn’t improve at all or just had a slight improvement in enophthalmos. And finally one patient had been lost in follow up visits.