 |
|
Orbital Floor Fracture Repair
Rhodri Williams, MBChB, FDSRCS, FRCS;
Sat Parmar, BMBS, FDSRCS, FRCS
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(4):300-301.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In response to the research letter by Majmundar and Hamilton,1 we would like to highlight some limitations of their article. We agree with the authors' ideals for implantable material for reconstruction of orbital fractures and that it should be easily shaped, but we would add that the material should also have the ability to retain its molded shape. SupraFOIL material (S. Jackson Inc, Alexandria, Virginia) will not retain its new shape, unlike some other materials, such as reinforced polyethylene (MEDPOR TITAN; Porex Surgical Products Inc, Newnan, Georgia) and titanium mesh. The cost argument is valid for all health equipment and interventions, but the material must be appropriate for the purpose for which it was intended.
The conclusions that the authors make with regard to the low complication rate associated with this material cannot be wholly justified given their small sample . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
RELATED LETTER
Orbital Floor Fracture Repair—Reply
Jason S. Hamilton
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(4):301.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
