Avetikov D. S., Ivanytska O. S., Steblovsky D. V., Yatsenko I. V., Toropov O. A., Yatsenko P. I., Havryliev V. M.

EXPERIENCE OF USING ALLOGENIC TRANSPLANTS AND IMPLANTS OF NON-NATURAL ORIGIN FOR ORBITAL RECONSTRUCTION IN A COMPARATIVE ASPECT

---

Show/Download

About the author:

Avetikov D. S., Ivanytska O. S., Steblovsky D. V., Yatsenko I. V., Toropov O. A., Yatsenko P. I., Havryliev V. M.

Heading:

DENTISTRY

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

This article provides practical advice for using grafts of different origins for orbital reconstruction in the case of traumatic injuries and orbitopathy. Currently, many discussions continue regarding the surgical treatment of pa- tients with this pathology, given the large number of materials for surgical intervention. Within the framework of this study, 42 patients with orbital injuries were operated on, who underwent orbital re- construction using allogeneic grafts and implants of various origins with preservation of orbital contents on the basis of the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery of the Poltava Regional Clinical Hospital named after M.V. Sklifosovsky POR from 2020 to 2024. Clinical case histories, surgical intervention protocols, and follow-up data in the immediate and long-term postoperative period were analyzed, including for the presence of inflammatory and functional com- plications. The allogeneic materials used in our clinic were lyophilized cartilage and bone, broad fascia, and heterogeneous bovine bone graft. A study of 14 orbital reconstructions using freeze-dried dura mater demonstrated an annual inci- dence of enophthalmos of 4.2%. Although allogeneic materials offer several attractive properties, there are certain disadvantages to their use. We have shown that in 78% of cases their resorption rate is statistically higher than that of autologous implants. We have found that allogeneic materials exhibit increased implant resorption and are unable to provide an ad- equate skeleton for new bone formation. We have confirmed the view of other authors that the smooth surface of currently used absorbable materials can form a fibrous capsule: this may cause complications related to its presence. We believe that the best alternative to current orbital reconstruction materials is collagen-based implants, especially in the surgical treatment of orbitopathies of various genesis.

Tags:

Bibliography:

1. Eng JF, Younes S, Crovetti BR, Williams KJ, Haskins AD, Hernandez DJ, et al. Characteristics of Orbital Injuries Associated with Maxillofacial Trauma. Laryngoscope. 2023;133(7):1624-1629. DOI: 10.1002/lary.30477.
2. Herasymenko LO, Skrypnikov AM, Avetikov DS. Psykhoterapevtychna korektsiia v roboti z patsiientamy, yaki maiut defekty ta deformatsii oblychchia. Poltava: VDNZU “UMSA”; 2008. 128 s. [in Ukrainian].
3. Avetikov DS, Lokes KP, Stavytskyi SO, Yatsenko IV, Rozkolupa OO. Perelomy nyzhnoi shchelepy: analiz chastoty vynyknennia, lokalizatsii ta uskladnen. Visnyk problem biolohii i medytsyny. 2014;3(3(112)):62-64. [in Ukrainian].
4. Hudecki A, Wolany W, Likus W, Markowski J, Wilk R, Kolano-Burian A, et al. Orbital reconstruction – applied materials, therapeutic agents and clinical problems of restoration of defects. J. Eur J Pharmacol. 2021;892:173766. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173766.
5. Dugast S, Longis J, Anquetil M, Piot B, Corre P, Huon JF, et al. Reconstruction techniques of the orbit after Brown class III maxillectomy: A systematic review. Head Neck. 2023;45(6):1581-1593. DOI: 10.1002/hed.27352.
6. Drozdowski P, Jaworski A, Łątkowski Ł, Burkacka A, Lisovski W, Handziak M, et al. Secondary reconstruction of the orbit and conjunctival sac – a case report. Acta Chir Plast. 2023;65(1):34-36. DOI: 10.48095/ccachp202334.
7. Chepurnyy YuV, Kopchak AV, Chernohorskyy DM, Zhukovtseva OI. Efektyvnist zastosuvannya patsiyentspetsyfichnykh implantativ pry likuvanni defektiv ctinok orbity, poyednanykh iz perelomamy vylytsevoho kompleksu. Klinichna khirurhiia. 2020;87(5-6):65-70. DOI: 10.26779/2522-1396.2020.5-6.65. [in Ukrainian].
8. Colletti G. The Reconstruction of the Medial Wall of the Orbit: A Change in Philosophy. J Invest Surg. 2020;33(7):653-654. DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2018.1554017.
9. Bilge AD, Yazici B, Efe AC. Reconstruction of Orbital Exenteration Defect With Cheek or Combined Cheek and Forehead Advancement Flaps. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;37(4):346-351. DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001869.
10. Blessing NW, Rong AJ, Tse BC, Erickson BP, Lee BW, Johnson TE. Orbital Bony Reconstruction With Presized and Precontoured Porous Polyethylene-Titanium Implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021;37(3):284-289. DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001829.
11. Gass M, Füßinger MA, Metzger MC, Schwarz S, Bähr JD, Brandenburg L, et al. Virtual reconstruction of orbital floor defects using a statistical shape model. J Anat. 2022;240(2):323-329. DOI: 10.1111/joa.13550.
12. Schreurs R, Klop C, Maal TJJ. Advanced Diagnostics and Three-dimensional Virtual Surgical Planning in Orbital Reconstruction. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2021;29(1):79-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.cxom.2020.11.003.

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», Issue 2,177, 475-481 pages, index UDC 616.314+617.7-089.843

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2025-2-177-475-481