Introduction

Explor BioMat-X

EBMX

Exploration of BioMat-X

2996-9476

Open Exploration Publishing

10.37349/ebmx.2024.00022

101322

Review

A review of biopolymer innovations in oculoplastic surgery: reconstruction of eyelid, lacrimal, and orbital structures

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2756-3973

Kulbay

Merve

Visualization Project administration Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing ¹

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1662-6900

Kevin Y.

Conceptualization Writing—review & editing ² ^*

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4096-7037

Hocini

Adam

Visualization Writing—original draft Writing—review & editing ³

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8323-6761

Daigle

Patrick

Supervision Writing—review & editing ² Zeng

Rongchang

Academic Editor Shandong University of Science and Technology (SDUST), China

¹Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, McGill University, Montréal, QC H4A0A4, Canada ²Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K2R1, Canada ³Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H3T1J4, Canada

^*Correspondence: Kevin Y. Wu, Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1K2R1, Canada. yang.wu@usherbrooke.ca

2024

28 11 2024

1 6 300 330 22 08 2024 23 11 2024

This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

The fusion of biomaterial science with clinical practice in oculoplastic and orbital surgery, particularly in the reconstruction of the posterior lamella of the eyelid, the lacrimal system, orbital floor fractures, and the development of implants for anophthalmic sockets, represents a frontier where materials meet surgical techniques. This review, which spans research from 2015 to 2023, delves into the application and integration of biopolymers and functional biomaterials in these complex areas. The discussion begins by reviewing the key anatomy of the external ocular surface, lacrimal system, and orbit. It then summarizes the various current surgical approaches for treating diseases affecting the external ocular surface and orbital involvement, with an emphasis on the associated challenges. The discussion continues with a comprehensive overview of the advantages and disadvantages of current and emerging biomaterials, including synthetic and natural polymers, used in reconstructive surgeries. These include applications for eyelid structure reconstruction, lacrimal system repair, orbital bone fracture repair, and orbital socket reconstruction. Throughout the review, the pathophysiology and challenges associated with these reconstructive procedures are explored, with an emphasis on surgical nuances and the ongoing pursuit of optimal reconstruction techniques. Finally, this review serves as a valuable resource for familiarizing clinicians with current knowledge and generating future hypotheses. It concludes that no evidence-based guidelines currently exist in oculoplastic surgery regarding the use of biopolymers in reconstructive procedures. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy and reproducibility of these biopolymers.

biopolymers orbital implants eyelid surgery lacrimal system

Introduction

The field of oculoplastic surgery encompasses numerous surgical interventions that can be summarized into three fields: the orbit, the eyelids, and the lacrimal system. Eyelid reconstructions are amongst the most performed surgical interventions globally [1]. Oculoplastic surgical traumas are non negligeable; from 2006 to 2015 in the United States, 4.2 million emergency department visits were shown to be related to primary oculoplastic diagnosis, in which 70% were trauma-induced diagnosis, and nearly half of those cases required a surgical intervention [2]. Orbital floor fracture incidence was shown to have increased by nearly 50% from 2006 to 2017 in the United States [3]. The economic burden of eyelid laceration repair was shown to have further increased by nearly $30 million, accounting for approximately $1,600 per person in the United States [4]. Over the past years, efforts have been deployed to reduce the associated costs with surgical interventions. Current modern medicine, shifting its practice towards sustainable alternatives, has shed light in the past years on the use of polymer composites to leverage the economical, sustainable, and safety challenges, and further provide better patient care [5]. Current breakthroughs in medicine involve the use of polymer composites for orbital implants, posterior lamellar eyelid reconstructions, and as well as the lacrimal system [5–8]. In addition to being a great sustainable alternative to current surgical synthetic materials, polymer composites have shown high biocompatibility and low immunogenicity [9, 10]. The aim of this comprehensive literature review is to provide an overview of the most recent studies involving the use of polymer composites in the field of oculoplastic surgery. To better comprehend the challenges associated with current surgical techniques, the anatomy of the eyelid, lacrimal system, and orbits are first presented. Secondly, the most current surgical approaches for eyelid reconstruction surgeries, dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR), and orbital surgeries are discussed along with their respective challenges. Finally, this review discusses the most novel polymer composites in these surgical settings and proposes future perspectives regarding their possible role in a clinical setting.

The anatomy of the ocular external surface, lacrimal system, and orbit Eyelid and lacrimal system anatomy

The eyelids and lacrimal system are crucial structures of the eye with various roles such as tear film distribution, tear drainage, protection of the ocular surface, and cosmesis [11]. The average dimension of the adult palpebral fissure varies from 28–30 mm horizontally and 10–12 mm vertically [12]. The eyelid is anatomically divided into two lamellae: the anterior and the posterior lamellae (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Schematic illustration of the eyelid structures. The eyelid structures encompass the conjunctiva, orbicularis oculi muscle, meibomian gland, tarsal plate, and lash follicle. Created in BioRender. Hocini, A. (2024) https://BioRender.com/z59t140

The anterior lamella of the eyelid is composed of very thin skin and the orbicularis oculi muscle. Given the extremely thin aspect of the eyelid’s skin, it is more flexible than surrounding skin, allowing for repetitive blinking movements [13]; unfortunately, this unique characteristic also poses significant challenges for skin grafts. Furthermore, although the eyelid skin is deprived of surface lipids, the presence of large superficial corneocytes (i.e., terminally differentiated keratinocytes) allows for adequate hydration [13]. The orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the skin is divided into the orbital and palpebral portions. The orbital portion of the orbicularis oculi muscle allows for tight eye closure. The medial portion of the orbicularis oculi muscle plays an important role in the lacrimal pump mechanism [14].

The posterior lamella consists of the tarsus, the orbital septum, and the underlying conjunctiva. The tarsal plate is made up of dense connective tissue, encompassing type I, III, and IV collagen, chondroitin, and keratan sulfate [15, 16], and serves as a structural support for the eyelids. The extracellular matrix of the tarsal plate consists of a collagen-elastin network and highly contributes to the biomechanics of the eyelid tarsus [16]. Finally, the meibomian glands are located within the tarsal plate and are vital for lipid layer synthesis in the tear film [17]. Post-secretion modifications and damages to the meibomian glands can alter the lipid components and synthesis capacity respectively, therefore destabilizing the tear film and leading to dry eye syndrome [17].

Drainage of tears occurs through the lacrimal system. Pathologies involving the lacrimal system at different levels, such as nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NDO) and ectropion’s, can lead to disrupted tear film drainage. The lacrimal system encompasses the lacrimal gland, the punctums, the lacrimal sac, and the ducts and canals interconnecting the lacrimal system (Figure 2) [18].

Figure 2

Schematic illustration of the lacrimal system. The lacrimal system structures consist of the following: lacrimal gland, lacrimal gland duct, upper punctum, superior lacrimal canal, lacrimal sac, lower punctum, and inferior lacrimal canal. Created in BioRender. Hocini, A. (2024) https://BioRender.com/o05x888

The main lacrimal gland can be divided into two lobes: the orbital lobe, which is twice as large as its other division, and the palpebral lobe [19]. The orbital lobe lies in the lacrimal fossa while the palpebral lobe lies under the levator palpebrae. The excretory ducts of the main lacrimal gland open into the superior conjunctival fornix. In the lamina propria of the conjunctiva, we can find the glans of Krause and the glans of Wolfring, two subdivisions of the accessory lacrimal glands. The ducts of the accessory lacrimal glands both open onto the conjunctiva surface [20]. The puncta are located near the medial canthi; they serve as the entry point for the lacrimal tears to be drained. Both canaliculi meet at the lacrimal sac. The valve of Rosenmüller is a mucosal flap that prevents tear reflux from the lacrimal sac to the canaliculi [21]. The lacrimal sac lies in the lacrimal sac fossa and runs down vertically to become the nasolacrimal duct. This duct then empties into the inferior nasal meatus. The valve of Hasner, found within the nasolacrimal duct, prevents retrograde displacement of tears originating from the nasal cavity [22].

Anatomy of the orbit

Orbital injuries are often associated with major traumas, where motorcycle collisions account for most cases [23]. However, the mechanism of injury was shown to differ according to age groups and ethnicity [24]. Elderly people were shown to be more prone to have fall-induced orbital injuries, whereas Hispanic and African-American people were shown to have assault-related orbital injuries [25, 26]. Blow out fractures (i.e., fracture to one or more bones surrounding the eye) are the consequence of isolated facial blunt traumas [27]. The orbits are susceptible to injury given their complex anatomy involving soft tissues and 7 bones (Figure 3) [28].

Figure 3

Anterior and lateral view of the human skull structures and orbit anatomy. Created in BioRender. Hocini, A. (2024) https://BioRender.com/u78q526

Current surgical approaches for ocular external surface diseases and orbital involvement and their challenges Ptosis repair

The prevalence of ptosis was shown to range from 4.7% to 13.5% based on the study population [29]. The pathophysiology of ptosis encompasses a wide array of etiologies [30], such as aponeurotic ptosis [31], neurogenic ptosis [32], third cranial nerve palsy [33], Horner syndrome [34], myogenic ptosis [35], myasthenia gravis [36], chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia [37], oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy [38], and traumatic ptosis [39]. Surgery is an effective way to treat this condition and is indicated in cases of visual field abnormality secondary to ptosis or, in some cases, for aesthetic purposes [40]. Depending on the etiology of the ptosis, different surgical techniques can be used (Table 1). The levator aponeurosis advancement procedure consists of an incision through the eyelid skin, followed by dissection of the orbital septum to identify the dehisced or disinserted aponeurosis. The levator is then advanced and sutured to the upper one-third of the tarsus [41]. Conversely, the Muller’s muscle-conjunctival resection (MMCR) technique, involves everting the upper eyelid to expose the conjunctiva to subsequently resect the Muller’s muscle and excess tissue [42]. The frontalis flap is another surgical procedure to treat congenital or acquired ptosis, with the aim of elevating the frontalis muscle to the superior one third of the tarsus with sutures [43]. However, given that this technique is not reversible, it is not indicated in patients with poor levator function secondary to paralytic or myogenic causes, in which post-operative success is dependent upon reversibility and height adjustments [43]. Conversely to this technique, the frontalis sling method utilizes a sling material to elevate the frontalis muscle [44]. Different materials can be used to create the sling, with autogenous fascia considered the material of choice due to its lowest recurrence of ptosis and complications [45]. Other materials used include banked fascia [46], nylon monofilament [47], polyester [48], PTFE [47], polypropylene [49], ETHIBOND [50], and silicone [51]. Recurrence rates vary from one material to another, with PTFE and nylon monofilament yielding the highest complication and recurrence rates [47]. Furthermore, inflammatory reactions, such as mycobacterial infections [52] and orbital inflammation [53], can occur at the site of insertion of the material and have been shown to vary depending on material choice [54, 55]. Overall, each current surgical technique for ptosis repair comes with disadvantages. There is therefore a crucial need to improve surgical techniques to provide better outcome long term.

Table 1

Key surgical approaches for ptosis repair

Surgical technique	Key features	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Levator advancement	The levator aponeurosis is advanced and sutured to the superior tarsus Mainly recommended for aponeurotic and involutional ptosis No material needed	Small-incision techniques exist Possibility of performing simultaneous blepharoplasty Reoperation is easy to perform Minimal changes in eyelid anatomy	Does not correct dermatochalasis or lash ptosis Recurrence rate between 9–12% Entropion of the upper lid Possibility of over- or under correction of the ptosis Risk of asymmetry in upper eyelid height	[30, 40, 41, 56–61]
Muller’s muscle-conjunctival resection (MMCR)	Muller’s muscle and conjunctiva are excised after everting the upper eyelid Mainly for mild to moderate ptosis with good LPS muscle function No material needed	Less risk of injury to sensory nerves and the distal branch of the facial nerve No visible scar Short operating time and learning curve Avoidance of dry eyes and floppy eyelid	Need for an additional incision for blepharoplasty Not indicated for poor levator function May increase symptoms in patients with dry-eye syndrome Avoided in patients with corneal disease or filtering blebs	[42, 61–63]
Frontalis flap	Consists of releasing the frontalis muscle and suturing it to the upper tarsus No material needed	No need for alloplastic or autologous tissue Improves the direction of the pull Minimal ptosis on upward gaze compared to frontalis sling Can be done at a younger age Low risk of facial nerve injury	Possibility of severe lagophthalmos, lid lag, and nocturnal exposure keratopathy Eyebrow asymmetry Overcorrection not reversible Not indicated in patients with poor levator function	[64–66]
Frontalis sling	Linkage of the frontalis muscle to the eyelid tarsus using a sling material Material of choice: autogenous fascia Other materials used: banked fascia, nylon monofilament, polyester, PTFE, polypropylene, ETHIBOND, and silicone	Better eyelid position in primary gaze Possibility of reversibility if overcorrection	Lagophtalmos Eyelid lag in downgaze Scarring and loss of eyelid crease 26% recurrence rate Foreign body sensation Granuloma or eyelid infections	[44–51, 67]

Tumor excision

Eyelid tumors can be benign, with multiple examples including papillomas [68], seborrheic keratosis, chalazion [69], nevus [70], or cysts [71]. Malignant tumors include basal cell carcinoma (BCC) [72], being the most common, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) [73], sebaceous gland carcinoma [74], or Merkel cell carcinoma [75]. Surgical excision with tumor free margins is the gold standard to treat malignant tumors [76]. Ensuing surgical excision, multiple approaches can be used to repair the eyelid. An upper lid defect of up to 20% in young patients and 30% in older patients can be addressed with direct closure [77]. For larger eyelid defects, grafts can be used. An anterior lamellar defect can be reconstructed using a full-thickness skin graft using upper or lower eyelid skin, posterior auricular skin, preauricular skin, or supraclavicular skin [77]. Tarsoconjunctival grafts taken from healthy eyelids are the gold standard for posterior lamina reconstruction [78]. Other eyelid repair techniques include various types of flaps (Table 2).

Table 2

Summary of eyelid reconstructive techniques following tumor excision

Surgical technique	Key features	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Autografts	For anterior lamellar defects: full-thickness skin graft from upper or lower eyelid, posterior auricular, preauricular, or supraclavicular skin For posterior lamellar defects: palatal mucosa, auricular cartilage, and tarsoconjunctival grafts are the gold standard	Resilience and high vascularization Effective conjunctival replacements Less immune response	Corneal irritation due to absence of goblet cells and a rough surface Lack of rigidity compared to a native tarsal plate Painful and increased post-op healing period Limited donor area availability	[78, 79]
Cutler-Beard flap	Full-thickness cutaneo-conjunctival lower eyelid bridge flap over the upper eyelid, separated a few weeks later No material needed	Usable for most defects Effective for large eyelid defects Can be combined with a graft to promote greater stability	Entropion Lid margin irregularity Eyelash loss Bridge flap necrosis Eyelid retraction Eyesight problems for people with low visual acuity on the unoperated eye	[80–84]
Rotational rhomboid flap	A rhomboid-shaped defect is created, consisting of two triangles placed base to base No material needed	Minimal complications Useful in challenging medial canthal defect Low traction on the skin Flap can be rotated in multiple directions	Stress unevenly distributed Modification in canthal height	[85–87]
Mustardé rotational flap	First incision made at the lateral canthus all the way up at the level of the eyebrows Second incision vertical to the tragus	Minimal skin tension Useful for large defects Can be combined with a posterior lamellar graft Good cosmetic result, low complication rate and low patient morbidity	Downward contraction and sagging of the flap Ectropion Need of a septal cartilage mucoperichondrial autograft to reproduce the tarsus	[88–90]
Tripier flap	Musculocutaneous bipedicle flap from the upper eyelid suspended at both canthi not including the tarsal plate With or without septal cartilage graft	Considered one of the best to repair lower-lid retraction or ectropion Good aesthetic and functional results, with excellent color match Low complication rate Less damage to the facial nerve Preserve the continuity of orbicularis muscle fibers	Ectropion Epiphora Eyelid edema Lagophthalmos Dry eyes	[91, 92]
Hughes tarsoconjunctival flap	Tarsoconjunctival flap from upper eyelid, split at the mucocutaneous junction and attached to the lower lid conjunctiva Flap is Separated few weeks later With or without a skin graft	Best used for full-thickness defects of the central portion of the lower lid Good functional and aesthetic results Low complication rate	Lower lid margin erythema Lower lid ectropion or entropion Lagophthalmos Infection or flap dehiscence Eyelid retraction Dry eyes Corneal abrasion	[93–95]

Cutler-Beard technique

The bridging flap, also known as the Cutler-Beard technique, is a surgical approach primarily used to repair large defects in the eyelid, in cases such as the resection of a sebaceous gland carcinoma [80]. This intervention requires the placement of a full-thickness cutaneo-conjunctival lower eyelid bridge flap over the upper eyelid after tumor excision [81]. The bridge is then separated a few weeks after the surgery [82]. Unfortunately, multiple limitations and complications are associated with this specific technique, such as the lack of upper eyelid lashes post-reconstruction, vision impairment prior to bridge separation, necrosis of the flap, lower eyelid ectropion, cicatricial ectropion, and upper eyelid retraction [96]. Additionally, the pressure from the bridging skin flap can cause erosion or damage to the cornea. Finally, dehiscence of the graft can occur due to the application of opposite forces by the upper and lower eyelids.

Rotational rhomboid flap

The rotational rhomboid flap can be useful to repair eyelid defects, especially in the medial canthus area [85]. A rhomboid shape defect is created with the virtual long axis, in which the flap can be rotated in multiple directions to cover the defect [86]. The challenge with this technique is ensuring that the stress on the skin is well distributed and no modification of the canthal height is made [86].

Mustardé rotational flap

The Mustardé rotational flap, along with the bridging flap, can also be used for large defects following a tumor excision [89]. In this procedure, a septal cartilage mucoperichondrial autograft is used to reproduce the tarsal plate [88, 89]. The Mustardé flap yields very good cosmetic outcomes because it preserves the texture and skin color of the patient, while ensuring adequate vascularization to the operated area [97]. However, the most common post-operative complication of this intervention is sagging of the lower eyelid and ectropion [88, 89].

Tripier flap

The Tripier flap can be to correct an ectropion after another reconstruction surgery like the Mustardé flap or the V-Y advanced flap [91]. It can also be a good option for correcting full-thickness eyelid defects. The preservation of muscle fibers within the flap provides for excellent tissue vascularization and aesthetic results. This surgery also tends to cause less damage to the facial nerve and keep the integrity of the orbicularis muscle fibers. Other variations of the Tripier flap can be utilized to reconstruct the upper eyelid or even the use of single-pedicle flap [92]. However, since the procedure relies on the properties of existing tissue on the patient, flap size is limited to the amount of excess skin available.

Hughes tarsoconjunctival flap

The Hughes tarsoconjunctival flap involves the creation of a tarsoconjunctival flap from the ipsilateral upper eyelid. Given the two-stage nature of the procedure, it poses similar limitations as mentioned earlier with the Cutler-Beard flap. Furthermore, a careful dissection of the levator muscle from the tarsoconjunctival flap needs to be done to avoid eyelid retraction. Other minor post-operative complications include flap necrosis, corneal abrasion on flap division, mucous discharge, or dry eye syndrome [93, 94].

Lacrimal system impairment

DCR is one of the most common surgeries and is indicated when there is an NDO, that being either congenital or acquired. This obstruction can happen anywhere along the path of the lacrimal duct. DCR involves inserting a silicone tube into the punctum through the canaliculus to reinforce lacrimal drainage. However, it is to be noted that the tubes can be made of different material sources [98]. Silicone stents are currently the most commonly used. However, to reduce the high cost and the risk of infection of silicone stenting, Baruah et al. [99] studied the use of polypropylene stenting. Polypropylene is cheaper, readily available, shows less tissue reaction, and reduces bacterial contamination [99]. This material is also non absorbable and shows good tensile strength [99], therefore providing a great alternative to silicone stenting. External DCR has been thought to be the gold standard in DCR surgeries given the limited technology available for an endoscopic approach [100]. However, with recent advances in technology, endoscopic DCR has shown great success rates and is currently the preferred approach by most surgeons [101]. External DCR describes higher risk of bleeding and wound infection [102]. Endoscopic DCR is beneficial for multiple reasons, such as minimal invasiveness, preservation of the lacrimal pump function, shorter surgical duration, and better cosmetic outcome [102].

Orbital involvement Orbital bone fracture

Orbital floor fractures are amongst the most common site of injuries [103]. Data analysis from 2006 to 2017 has shown that the incidence of orbital floor fractures in the United States had significantly increased [3]. The primary goal in orbital fracture management is to maintain function and limit further damage on the globe. The majority of patients will benefit from a conservative approach [104]. However, in cases where surgery is necessary, this must be performed within 14 days of injury [104]. The indications for surgery are based on the clinical presentation. The presence of diplopia, enophthalmos (i.e., eye sinking deeper in the eye socket), and ocular motility dysfunctions are criteria for surgery [104]. Additional criteria based on orbital cavity volume and size of the fault area are considered [105]. Taken together, these clinical findings may be suggestive of a muscle entrapment.

Three main factors should be considered in orbital fracture management: the surgical timeframe (i.e., within two weeks), the surgical approach, and the choice of material for the reconstruction. The surgical approaches for orbital floor repair can be divided into two approaches: the transcutaneous (i.e., subciliary, subtarsal, and infraorbital) or transconjunctival approach [106, 107]. The transconjunctival approach is the preferred surgical method for orbital floor fracture repairs. The site of injury is accessed through an incision at the fornix of conjunctiva [106]. However, in many cases, a canthotomy is required to increase exposure rate, and is thus associated with a potential visible scar [108]. The subciliary approach consists on accessing the orbital floor through an incision at the lower lid [106]. One limitation of subciliary approach is its association with higher incidence of denervation of the pretarsal orbicularis [109]. In the subtarsal approach, the orbital floor is accessed through an incision below the eyelid margin in the subtarsal crease and extends laterally. This approach is preferred in comparison to the subciliary approach, given that it preserves the innervation of the tarsus [110]. The infraorbital approach’s advantage is a rapid and direct access to the orbital floor through an incision of the skin, orbicularis muscle, and periosteum [106].

Aside from surgical timeframe and approach choice, the third and final consideration for orbital floor fractures regards material choice for the reconstruction. A variety of materials have been discussed in the literature for this purpose [111]. Unfortunately, there is still controversies in which material is better in orbital fracture reconstruction. Current biomaterials can be categorized into several types. These include biological materials like bone grafts, cartilage and fascia; metals like titanium and cobalt alloys; polymers, that can be porous or non-porous and either absorbable or not absorbable; biological ceramics, like porous hydroxyapatite (HA); and composites, like titanium reenforce polyethylene (PE) to name one (Table 3) [112]. For many years, autologous bone transplants for orbital floor fracture repairs used to be considered as the gold standard [113]. Autologous bone transplant is achieved by harvesting a bone sample from a donor site, consisting of either the mandibular coronoid process, anterior maxillary wall, mandibular symphysis, rib, or scapula, and using it as a rigid support during the reconstructive surgery [114–117]. However, given the increased donor site morbidity, variability in resorption rates, and technical difficulty, treatment paradigm has shifted towards the use of allogenic and mainly alloplastic materials [113, 118]. Allogenic materials in oculoplastic surgery refers to tissues harvested from another individual for surgical purposes, whereas alloplastic materials are from a synthetic origin. The most common alloplastic material in maxillofacial surgery is titanium. Titanium osteosynthesis biomaterials are currently the gold standard in maxillofacial fracture managements [119]. Nevertheless, multiple challenges are also associated with the use of this biomaterial; titanium systems are challenging given the potential restriction in bone growth, sensitivity to temperature, mutagenicity, tactical discomfort associated with the plates and screws, and interference with radiological imaging techniques [120–122]. To leverage the challenges associated with these systems, numerous efforts have been deployed in the past years to develop high standard biopolymers for orbital floor fracture management. In the ensuing sections, we delve into the most recent and novel applications for orbital floor fracture repair, as well as their involvement in orbital bioimplants. However, with the recent advances in the use of biopolymers in medicine, a shift in the clinical interest towards these materials for orbital floor fracture management has been observed. Novel advances in this field will be further discussed in the subsequent sections.

Table 3

Summary of current materials used in orbital bone fracture repair

Material type	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Bone grafts (Calvarium, iliac crest, rib, maxillary sinus)	Cost-effective Good stability Maximal biocompatibility Smooth surface Variability in thickness Radio-opacity	Limited availability Variable resorption rate (unpredictable orbit volume) Donor site morbidity Increased surgical time	[112, 123–127]
Titanium meshes	Permanent and good fixation Good compatibility and permeability Good strength Radio-opacity	Risk of late infections secondary to chronic sinusitis Expensive Not easily removable Sharp edges and palpable	[112, 123–126, 128–130]
Porous polyethylene sheets	Allows for tissue integration	Lack of rigidity Not visible on imaging High cost Risk of compartment syndrome Less drainage	[112, 123–126, 129, 131, 132]
Composite of porous polyethylene and titanium meshes	Combines advantages from both biomaterial Radio-opacity Good stability and fixation Can be used in three-wall fractures Allows for tissue integration	Risk of compartment syndrome High cost No need for donor site Less drainage	[112, 124–126, 128–130, 132]
Resorbable materials (thermoplastic and non-thermoplastics)	Good availability Smooth surface Good malleability (thermoplastics only)	Not visible on imaging Possibility of material degradation Inflammatory response Less drainage	[112, 123–126, 129, 132]
Preformed orbital implant	Smooth surface Minimal countering needed Radio-opacity	Very high cost	[112, 123–126, 129, 132]

Globe rupture

In more severe cases involving damage to the eye globe, enucleation or exenteration can be performed. Both of these surgeries may be indicated in various scenarios that create a painful eye, such as trauma to the eye with loss of its content, endophthalmitis with phthisis, and keratoconjunctivitis complicated by globe perforation. These surgeries are also indicated to prevent the progression of an existing eye neoplasia [133].

Orbital exenteration is a radical and disfiguring surgical technique that involves the removal the entire orbital content and the surrounding structures, such as the muscles, fat, nerves and in some cases the eyelid [134]. In contrast, enucleation consists of the removal of the entire eye globe, but preserves the surrounding structures [135].

Once the globe is removed, an orbital implant needs to be inserted for aesthetic purposes and to restore eye volume. Multiple implants are currently being used, but controversies still exist concerning the best choice of implants (Table 4). The most common materials that are currently used are ceramics, autologous materials, silicone, PMMA, porous PE, and poly-HEMA [133]. Although numerous choices are available, these materials encompass various disadvantages such high cost, implant-associated infections, impediment on fibrovascular growth, fistula creation, delayed healing, and tumor recurrence [136].

Table 4

Summary of current used materials for orbital socket implants

Material type	Advantages	Disadvantages	References
Ceramics (hydroxyapatite)	Allows tissue ingrowth Well tolerated Provides good motility Few complications	Can cause conjunctival abrasion Not recommended for pediatric patients High cost	[133, 137–142]
Autologous materials (Bone, fat, skin, cartilage, muscle)	Cheaper alternative Preferred in pediatric patients Used to wrap exposed implants	Unpredictable graft uptake Requires additional surgery Risk of post-operative complications	[133–135, 143]
Silicone	Inertness Biocompatible Relatively good pliability Used to produce spherical non-orbital implant Low complication rate Non-porous silicone preferred in children because it is easily removable Easily surgically placed Allows tissue ingrowth	Typical foreign body reaction with the formation of a dense avascular capsule around the implant Fibrovascular ingrowth is not possible Exposure often leads to implant removal, and is less treatable conservatively	[133, 143, 144]
Poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA)	Excellent biocompatibility Widely used to fabricate intraocular lenses, orbital implants and rigid contact lenses Low cost Good clinical outcomes Easily surgically placed	Fibrovascular ingrowth is not possible Exposure often leads to implant removal, and is less treatable conservatively	[133, 143, 145–148]
Porous PE (polyethylene) (Medpor)	Allows tissue ingrowth Low-cost alternative to other implants Soft surface and well tolerated by soft tissue Reduced risk of complications Pliable	Not recommended for pediatric patients Slower vascularization compared to other materials	[133, 143, 146, 149]
Poly-HEMA (2-hydroxyethyl methacralate) (Alphasphere)	Does not require tissue wrapping Muscle can be sutured directly to the implant Smooth surface Limit risk of exposure Allows tissue ingrowth	Implant disintegration Fragmentation Partial extrusion Host reaction	[133, 143, 146, 150]

Overview of polymer composites

In the following sections, a comprehensive review of polymer composites will be presented. Due to some disadvantages highlighted among the various materials previously reviewed in this paper, polymer composites in medicine have experienced rapid growth in recent years. These new polymers are particularly significant and deserve attention, as they have been proposed as innovative alternatives for biomedical applications, including drug delivery, tissue engineering and regeneration, medical devices, and implants [151]. Their biocompatibility with human tissues, non-toxic nature, and their sustainable alternative have rendered biopolymers as an essential tool for modern medicine [152]. Polymer composites can be classified into different categories based on the classification system. They can be categorized based on their nature (biodegradable or non-biodegradable), their composition (i.e., based on the main material), their type (natural or synthetic) or their dimension. Novel classification systems favor a bi-parameter classification, outlining the type and nature of polymer composites (Figure 4). The biochemical properties of these biopolymers have been thoroughly reviewed, therefore they will not be covered in depth in this section [153].

Figure 4

General classification of polymer composites

Natural non-biodegradable polymer composites, such as bio-polyethylene terephthalate (PET), bio-PE, bio-polyamide (PA), and bio-poly(trimethylene terephthalate), are a great alternative to current synthetic sutures given their greater sustainability and environment friendly features. Furthermore, being biological products (i.e., plant-based or animal-based materials), they exhibit greater compatibility. However, current knowledge regarding their application in the field of oculoplastic surgery is sparse. In the past years, efforts have been deployed to develop natural non-biodegradable polymer composites in the field of manufacturing, for packaging and engineering (i.e., medical devices) [154]. However, advances in the field of oculoplastics are limited to none. Therefore, this comprehensive literature review will cover the application of the other three categories of polymer composites in the field of oculoplastic surgery. However, to be able to use these materials in reconstructive surgeries, they need to encompass certain general characteristics; the optimal polymer composite should be resorbable, biodegradable, resistant to infection, minimally reactive, cost effective, easy to manipulate, and easily accessible [155]. When used in the setting of an orbital floor fracture repair, they should in addition be osteoconductive, not induce capsule formation, and possess a half-life long enough to favor bone growth [155].

Novel applications of polymer composites in oculoplastic surgery Materials for blepharoplasty and suturing Natural polymer composites

Sutures are of great importance in reconstructive oculoplastic surgery. The tensile strength, biocompatibility and thermal stability are key features when engineering a suture. Furthermore, given the incidence of infection with blepharoplasty (0.2%) [156], the possibility to engineer a polymer composite with lower post-operative complication rates is highly sought after. Furthermore, biodegradable sutures are of interest given their greater esthetic outcome in eyelid reconstructive surgeries. The first approved natural polymer composite for suturing is the polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA)-based suture from TephaFLEX [157], which was shown to induce no adverse effects one year post intramuscular implantation of the PHA-based sutures in animal models [158]. Since, numerous efforts have been deployed in developing new suture alternatives based on polymer composites for modern medicine [159]. Recently, de la Harpe et al. [160] have proceeded with the engineering of a monofilament bioabsorbable suture composed of gelatin, sodium alginate, pectin and glycerol, that has drug delivery capabilities. They showed great biocompatibility of the suture with no cytotoxicity, as well as sustained drug delivery for 7 days [160]. The suture was successfully biodegraded within 28 days [160]. Similarly, Liu et al. [161] have shown the potential of polylactic acid (PLA) sutures loaded with microspheres enclosed drugs to delivery drugs post-surgically in a sustained manner, while maintaining the optimal mechanical properties [161].

Collagen and chitosan-based polymer composites have also shown great potential as suture alternatives. Collagen nanofibrils (CoNF) confer great mechanical stability. CoNF were shown to promote tendon-derived cell proliferation in vitro [162]. In fact, wound healing is highly dependent on cell proliferation at the surgical site. Conversely, chitosan-coated silk sutures have also shown great antibacterial efficacy [163, 164], mainly against Staphylococcus epidermis and Candida albicans [165]. Although these results were obtained in fields not involving reconstructive eyelid surgeries, the same outcomes can be hypothesized. However, further studies in the field of oculoplastic are needed to better understands the visual and clinical outcomes of natural polymer composites as alternatives to standard sutures.

Synthetic polymer composites

Non-biodegradable sutures are of interest in oculoplastic surgery for specific applications, such as tarsorrhaphy’s (i.e., procedure consisting of approximating the upper and lower eyelid in conditions with corneal exposure, such as chronic lagophthalmos). Clinical efficacity of PE sutures have been demonstrated on numerous occasions [166]; PE is amongst the most studied polymer composites for various biomedical applications [167, 168]. However, a major challenge regarding their use concerns their long-term safety and biodegradation.

Materials for lacrimal system stenting Natural polymer composites

Selvam et al. [169] compared the utilization of various polymers to support the morphological and physiological characteristics of rabbit purified lacrimal gland acinar (PLGA) cells for the development of a novel treatment for dry eye syndrome. They compared the efficacy of collagen 1, silicone, poly-D,L-lactide-co-glycolide, Thermanox^®, and poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), and concluded that PLLA was the most effective biopolymer among the others in supporting the growth of PLGA [169]. In 2009, the same authors continued their research and developed a microporous PLLA membrane (mPLLAm) to enhance scaffold properties for lacrimal acinar cells by aiming for improved permeability. The results were very promising and suggested that this biomaterial could be a promising avenue for the development a bioartificial lacrimal gland device [170]. A recent study created a decellularized lacrimal gland-derived hydrogel and compared its capacity to promote proliferation of porcine lacrimal gland epithelial cells to other biomaterials like Matrigel and collagen-1 [171]. After 24 h of hydrolyzing, the decellularized hydrogel led to better epithelial growth and functionality compared to other materials [171]. This in vitro experiment could potentially pave the way for the next generation of lacrimal gland engineering devices. In 2017, Hsiao et al. [172] decided to approach pathologies of the lacrimal glands with another angle; instead of finding a way to replace the gland, they decided to use a chitosan biomaterial to create a biocompatible environment to promote and mimic the branching structure formation of the lacrimal gland. The biomaterial works by increasing affinity of the lacrimal gland for hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), which is beneficial for the branching morphogenesis and structural development [172]. Hsiao et al. [173] also highlighted one of the main limitations of chitosan, which was the elimination of the polymer functionality after using certain pathway inhibitors such as PD98059 and LY2944002, inhibiting the MAPK and Akt/PKB pathways respectively [173]. Even though little research on this polymer exists, these two projects led by Hsiao et al. [173] could be the starting point for a new use of biopolymers in lacrimal gland regeneration.

Synthetic polymer composites

Pinilla et al. [174] conducted a non-randomized prospective clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of fluoroscope-guided nasolacrimal stents of polyurethane on 86 patients with obstructive epiphora. Of the successfully placed stents, 40 (52.6%) were clinically successful, meaning they achieved resolution or net improvement of the symptoms [174]. Mild complications like epistaxis, palpebral hematoma, pain, or other less common complications were encountered in 19 eyes, and 33 stents became occluded after 24 months [174]. The study concluded that this technique was a good alternative for DCR, but yielded fewer effective results than the surgery itself [174]. Conversely, Baruah et al. [99] studied 51 cases of dacryocystitis and evaluated the effectiveness of polypropylene for stenting after DCR. The surgery was successful for 92.2% of the patients, which is comparable to the results of other studies [175–178]. The principal advantage of this polymer is its possibility to be a great alternative to silicone stents, considering its good efficacy and lower cost [99]. A study involving 91 patients even stated no significant differences between the success rate of silicone and polypropylene stenting for endoscopic DCR [179]. An important element to consider is the lack of consensus in the literature regarding the real efficacy of silicone stents [180–182]. Silicone stenting, when used for the treatment of epiphora, has been reported to have certain disadvantages such as its risk of bacterial infection, its poor efficacy due to its hydrophobic nature, or the surgical challenge associated with this stent due of the curved shape of the lacrimal duct [183]. The study conducted by Park et al. [183] tried to seek solutions to address these disadvantages of silicone stenting. After experimenting with different materials, they synthesized a shape memory polymer (SMP) with elastic proprieties that allowed self-expansion, made of 94% polycaprolactone (PCL)-6%PGMA [183]. This polymer demonstrated excellent biocompatibility, improved efficacy in tear drainage, and superior resistance to bacteria compared to the conventional silicone stent, suggesting that it could be a better alternative [183]. Dai et al. [184] created an in situ degradable lacrimal plug made of methacrylate-modified silk fibroin (SFMA) which serves as a network with indocyanine green fluorescence tracer nanoparticle (FTN) [184]. In vivo testing on rabbits with dry eyes demonstrated that this trackable lacrimal duct plug could be a very good approach for the treatment of this condition in the future, considering the net improvement of symptoms with better lacrimal fluid retention and no inflammatory response [184]. In 2011, Chaloupka et al. [185] described a promising solution to resolve the frequent complication of duct blockage or displacement associated with the implantation of rigid Lester Jones tubes for tear duct surgery. They created a conduit made from polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane-poly(carbonate-urea) urethane (POSS-PCU) and demonstrated its superiority to its predecessors by demonstrating its improved biocompatibility, structure, and functional abilities [185].

Grafts Natural polymer composites

One of the biggest challenges in eyelid surgery is finding an adequate replacement material for the tarsus. Although, autografts and acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) are potential polymer composites for eyelid reconstruction surgeries, they have limitations; autografts may carry iatrogenic risks, and ADMs can cause infections and immunologic responses [186]. ADMs consist of connective tissue matrix—a collagen matrix—that does not exhibit immunogenic properties [187]. ADMs possess several beneficial properties that make them a suitable choice for eyelid reconstruction surgery. They provide rapid and long-term adherence to the wound surface, resistance to mechanical stress, and elastic properties making it able to adapt to ocular contours; other benefits of ADMs include the absence of antigenicity and toxicity, cost-efficiency, and extended shelf life as compared to other alternatives [188]. In a study involving 20 patients who underwent eyelid tumor resections, Ma et al. [189] explored the use of ADMs for eyelid reconstruction. They utilized ADMs as a substitute for the tarsal plate and the conjunctivae post-tumor resection. The study concluded that ADMs could be an effective alternative for posterior lamellar material. The results were promising: pedicle flaps survived in 90% of the patients, no tumor recurrence was noted, visual acuity and ocular movement were preserved in all patients, and half of the patients achieved excellent aesthetic results [189]. In addition to the long surviving time period, the authors mention that this polymer composite can assure stability of the eyelid, exhibit a good biocompatibility, and reduce complications related to the donor site [15]. Another study involving 21 patients also focused on reconstructive eyelid surgery following tumor resections [190]. It concluded that xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix shows encouraging results as a biomaterial for future tarsal plate replacement procedures [190]. Barmettler et al. [191] pursued a prospective randomized clinical trial in 2018 to compare the outcomes of the reparation of eyelid retraction using three different graft types: autologous auricular cartilage, bovine ADM, and porcine ADM [191]. The results showed significantly increased postoperative swelling in the auricular cartilage group compared to the other alternatives [191]. Although no other statistically significant differences in overall outcomes were observed among the three groups, the auricular cartilage grafts exhibited a higher inflammatory response. This finding suggests that clinicians may need to consider other criteria before using them and might prefer ADMs in order to avoid additional surgical sites and reduce surgical time [191]. Additionally, the absence of conjunctival surface with auricular grafts in ADM could potentially increase patient comfort.

Conversely, to imitate the eyelid tarsus, Sun et al. [192] applied fibroblasts, previously cultured from human eyelids, on chitosan hydrogel scaffolds. Using immunocytochemical staining, they demonstrated the scaffold’s ability to support and promote the growth and proliferation of human fibroblasts [192]. This innovation could potentially be a big step in the field of eyelid reconstruction, giving a personalized and biocompatible replacement to the tarsus. Another study by Drechsler et al. [193] investigated the use of compressed collagen for replacing the epithelial conjunctiva in fornix reconstruction surgeries. They found that this biopolymer had excellent strength and elasticity, but was also as malleable as the amniotic membrane (AM) [193], therefore providing promising avenues for this biopolymer for future advancements in conjunctival surgeries. Xu et al. [186] combined collagen and chitosan (COL/CS) to create a biphasic scaffold, and further integrated a COL/CS sponge with a poly(propylene fumarate)-co-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (PPF-HEMA) polymer network [186]. The PPF-HEMA layer acts as a structural base, while the COL/CS sponge retains water and imitates the conjunctival layer. This results in reduced inflammation and improved cell infiltration and proliferation [186]. We think that this multi-biomaterial approach could then be a great way for creating advanced scaffolds in eyelid surgery, using the unique key points of each biopolymer to compensate for the limitations of others.

Over the past years, the AM has proven to be very effective and useful in various pathologies and situations such as socket contracture, cicatricial disorders like Stevens-Johnson syndrome [194], cryptophthalmos [195], conjunctivochalasis [196], and even as an adjuvant in skin grafts [197]. In 2017, Singh et al. [197] reported a case involving a 20-year-old woman with a junctional eyelid kissing nevus. Like other studies on the subject [198–200], the combination of skin grafts and AM grafting (AMG) led to very good functional and cosmetic outcomes. Rahal et al. [198] studied the midterm results following resection of ocular surface squamous neoplasia of the fornix. The surgical repair technique used a mucosal graft combined with AMG. Among the 83 eyes from the 76 patients in the study, only 23 (27.71%) underwent successful corrective surgery, partially explained by secondary complications such as symblepharon, cicatricial ectropion, pannus, and corneal decompensation [198]. This study concluded that this technique preserved the vision, anatomy, and function of the eye confirming the efficacy of this surgical procedure [198]. In another case report, Reed et al. [201] described a 20-year-old male who underwent surgery for a right upper eyelid laceration following a car accident. They utilized a combination of a skin graft and AMG, which yielded good cosmetic results; the authors went onto highlighting the importance of the AM which acts as a scaffold for the healthy surrounding skin to proliferate [201]. This novel technique proved to be advantageous for multiple reasons: It avoids contracture of the surrounding tissue and reduces the need for large skin graft, which is beneficial for extensive lesions where skin availability is limited. The procedure can also be done without sedation, it can be very useful in settings where an operating room is not available. Finally, the low risk of scarring makes it a technique of choice because it can occur with many other management techniques.

A case report by Borrelli et al. [202] described the management of a 49-year-old woman with an adenoid cystic carcinoma in the pterygopalatine fossa who underwent multiple radiotherapy and surgical treatments. The patient developed lagophthalmos due to seventh nerve palsy and lead to exposure keratopathy because of cornea exposure post-operatively. Due to the lack of healthy skin for autologous grafts, a decellularized porcine-derived membrane (tarSys) was selected to treat the lower lid retraction. Three months after the surgery, no lagophthalmos or symptoms of keratopathy were present, however, the long-term outcomes of the procedure were not reported. In 2013, a retrospective study was conducted by Liao et al. [203] to evaluate the efficacy of tarSys for the treatment of lower lid retraction in patients with graves ophthalmopathy. This study, which included 37 eyelids, concluded that tarSys was a good alternative for eyelid grafts. Another case report was published on a 54-year-old woman who underwent bilateral lower eyelid surgery using a porcine decellularized membrane graft [204]. Due to unilateral eye pain months after the procedure, the graft was removed after 15 months [204]. Pathological analysis revealed an inflammatory response, demonstrating that a host reaction can occur even in the theorical absence of antigens. Given that the literature on the use of decellularized grafts in humans is perhaps limited, these biopolymers should only be used as a second line of treatment or when other materials are unavailable or contraindicated.

Synthetic polymer composites

In 2004, Tan et al. [205] studied the use of porous PE lower eyelid spacers (Medpor LES) for the management of different causes of eyelid retraction. A Medpor LES was utilized in 32 patients for a total of 35 eyelids and the study results demonstrated a statistically significant clinical improvement 22 months post-surgery and a decrease of the following complications: palpebral aperture, lagophthalmos, increased L-MRD, and LSS [205]. However, other significant complications were reported in seven patients, consisting of implant exposure and reduced eye mobility, ultimately leading to the removal of the implant [205]. Eight patients also encountered minor complications requiring further surgical intervention such as transient lash loss, skin contour abnormalities, or margin ectropion. Although, the procedure yielded adequate results for 24 eyelids, 28% of the cases had satisfactory or poor outcomes. Due to the high number of complications and the frequent need for reoperation, this technique should be considered only when autologous grafts are not possible. The main advantage of this technique is to reduce surgical time and can be very useful for patients lacking skin to graft [206].

Xu et al. [207] further analyzed the potential of branched porous polyethylene for eyelid reconstruction, which offers a superior alternative for soft tissue replacement. They mainly focused on the elasticity properties of branched porous polyethylene with the aim of mimicking the eyelid’s tarsus. The study resulted in promising results. During subcutaneous implantation in rats, they observed a very mild inflammatory response, along with collagen deposition and fibro-vascularization [207]. Their trial on rabbits, demonstrated that the polyethylene had the same elasticity and repair properties of Medpor transplants used in the control group [207]. It also resulted in fewer eyelid deformities and a higher degree of fibrovascular tissue formation than the Medpor transplants [207]. This suggests that porous polyethylene could be a better option for in vivo eyelid reconstruction, particularly because of its non-toxic properties, addressing potential concerns about its use. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, no trials involving human eyelid have been done. Poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) (PHBHHx) is another synthetic polymer used in reconstruction of the eyelid. Zhou et al. [208] explored the use of PHBHHx as a substitute for the tarsus in comparison to ADMs. They found that both polymers were effective materials used for eyelid repair. Histological analysis two weeks post-implantation in rats revealed inflammation in this group, despite PHBHHx demonstrating good biocompatibility and elasticity [208]. Such findings could indicate that alternative polymers with lower inflammatory responses might be preferable. Other studies have also explored the employment of PCL for conjunctival reconstructions [209] or for tarsal reconstruction [210].

Mesh for orbital bone fractures Natural polymer composites

Natural biopolymers (i.e., biomaterials derived from nature) that have demonstrated their efficiency and safety in orbital injury repairs mainly encompass gelatin film. Gelatin films have been used for over two decades in oculoplastic surgery. Derived from denatured collagen, gelatin films are efficient for the reconstruction of small orbital defects (< 5 mm), whereas in larger defects, it can be used to bridge two distinctive materials such as plates and meshes [211]. When compared to silicone rubber, gelatin films were shown to decrease the migration of implants, relieve the post-surgical inflammatory processes, and contribute to a better healing outcome [212]. Although natural biopolymers have excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability, few challenges exist with the use of natural biopolymers, such as limited availability and great complexity associated with its extraction and synthesis. Synthetic biopolymers can overcome these challenges and are advantageous for many reasons, such as their tunable properties and consistent structure [213].

The use of protein-based coatings on synthetic biopolymers have recently been contributing to the paradigm shift in reconstructive maxillo-facial surgeries, including orbital floor fracture injuries. Recombinant bone morphogenic protein (BMP) can be coated onto numerous biopolymers, where its addition was shown to favor osteointegration of synthetic biopolymers through material integration and surface charge modulations [214, 215]. Four types of biopolymer coatings can be employed: transforming growth factor (TGF) β, BMP-2, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) [216]. However, studies regarding their use in orbital injuries are limited.

BMP-2 coating is mainly used for its strong osteoconductive power [216]. Its use in orthopedic surgeries is well known [217], however, studies encompassing orbital injuries are limited. Using polylacticglycolide acid copolymer coated with BMP-2 in a sheep model with an orbital floor fracture, Zheng et al. [218] have demonstrated the efficacity of the biomaterial in reconstructive surgery; upon absorption of the coated biopolymer, the defect was filled with a complex tissue (i.e., bone tissue, connective tissue, and mucosal epithelial layers), representative of the normal environment [218]. The use of additives and coatings is currently in emergence and additional studies along this topic are to be expected within the next years.

Synthetic polymer composites

The use of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) in blowout orbital fractures has recently been emphasized [148, 219]. Moldable PMMA was shown to be safe and effective in two patients with orbital blowout fractures [219].

Orbital socket implants Semi-synthetic polymer composites

Silicone has been used for decades in reconstructive surgeries for its cost-effectiveness, adherence capacity, enhanced permeability, and thermal and chemical stability [220–222]. However, given the significant implant-related complications, such as implant extrusion, socket edema, implant migration, and mechanical obstruction, current clinical practice has shifted away from the use of silicone implants [223, 224]. Semi-synthetic biopolymers have gained interest within the last five years given their similarity to the bone structure, their ability to effectively reconstruct orbital floor fractures, and the ability of mass production for these compounds.

HA compounds are known as ceramic materials and are mainly composed of calcium and phosphate ions, which confers its highly biocompatible and non-toxic properties [225]. However, challenges regarding the porosity, density, and composition of HA limits their use in single-based biomaterials [226]. HA-derived biopolymers’ efficacity in orbital floor and wall reconstruction surgeries has been demonstrated in conjunction with PLLA and PCL [227–229]. A recent retrospective study showed similar safety and efficiency of unsintered HA (uHA)/PLLA in comparison to PCL mesh for orbital wall fracture reconstructions [228]. However, one recent study has reported the presence of postoperative diplopia and enophthalmos in 12 patients who underwent orbital wall fracture repair with uHA/PLLA [230]. This outcome was reported to be induced by the extent and severity of the fracture. The Hess area ratio (HAR) is an objective and quantitative tool to measure eye movements and has shown great utility in assessing the post-surgical outcome in patients with orbital blowout fractures [227, 231]. When compared to silicone sheets or a combination of sheets, no significant differences in postoperative HAR was obtained with uHA/PLLA, suggesting that uHA/PLLA biopolymers are as effective as conventional materials for orbital floor fracture reconstruction [227].

Synthetic polymer composites

A study investigating the efficacity of PMMA implants in patients who underwent enucleation secondary to retinoblastoma’s demonstrated very little complications; implant migration was noted in only 28 (9%) patients and implant exposure and contracted socked was reported in 5 (2%) patients for each outcome [220]. These recent contributions to the novelty of PMMA implants and biopolymers are along the same findings reported nearly two decades ago [147].

Porous PE-Medpor-usage is not exclusive to eyelid reconstructive surgeries; the successful usage of Medpor as implants has also been showing great results [232–236]. In a recent 6-month follow-up study published this year, porous PE implants were shown to be associated with nearly absent complications: 1 patient (6%) exhibited implant migration, whereas 93% of participants reported a satisfactory outcome [234]. However, given that non-negligeable infection and implant exposure and distortion long-term complications have been reported with porous PE, the clinical decision to use these biopolymers in certain patients should be made with precaution [237–239].

Future directions in biomaterials research

A substantial amount of work has already been conducted on the study of these biomaterials, as reviewed in this paper. The authors have identified several gaps in the current literature and aim to highlight these areas to encourage further studies. It would be valuable to conduct further studies on the various drugs used in different eyelid and orbital surgeries, with a focus on their interactions with these new biomaterials. Studies employing numerical modeling approaches, such as the Finite Element Method or Multiphysics approach, would be highly beneficial for testing and evaluating differences of those biomaterials in the specific context of oculoplastic surgeries.

Conclusions

Since the first discoveries in biopolymers for orbital implants and reconstructive surgeries, numerous advances and challenges attributed to autologous graft transplants have been conquered [240]. The realm of the current practice is fulfilled with a variety of biomaterials and a challenge regarding the choice of surgical implants and grafts for reconstructive surgery exists. Novel advances have shifted their paradigm towards the development of biocompatible, effective, non-toxic, cost-effective, and sustainable biopolymers for reconstructive eyelid, lacrimal, and orbital surgeries. Although numerous preclinical studies have underlined the efficiency of these biomaterials, no scientific-based recommendations in oculoplastic exist regarding the use of biopolymers in reconstructive surgeries. Further studies and meta-analyses are required to outline the efficiency and reproducibility of these biopolymers. Nevertheless, this review bridges the clinical knowledge regarding the surgical approaches in oculoplastic surgery with the fundamental sciences behind the development of novel biopolymers. It not only serves as a tool for clinicians to familiarize with the current knowledge but also guides research hypothesis within the field given the raised challenges throughout the comprehensive literature review.

Abbreviations

ADMs

acellular dermal matrices

amniotic membrane

AMG

amniotic membrane grafting

BMP

bone morphogenic protein

COL/CS

collagen and chitosan

CoNF

collagen nanofibrils

DCR

dacryocystorhinostomy

hydroxyapatite

HAR

Hess area ratio

NDO

nasolacrimal duct obstruction

PCL

polycaprolactone

polyethylene

PHA

polyhydroxyalkanoate

PHBHHx

poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate)

PLGA

purified lacrimal gland acinar

PLLA

poly-L-lactic acid

PMMA

poly(methyl methacrylate)

PPF-HEMA

poly(propylene fumarate)-co-2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate

uHA

unsintered HA

Declarations Author contributions

MK: Visualization, Project administration, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. KYW: Conceptualization, Writing—review & editing. AH: Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. PD: Supervision, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Baroni

Non-surgical blepharoplasty with the novel plasma radiofrequency ablation technology

Skin Res Technol 2020 26 121 4

10.1111/srt.12774

31535742

Ahmad

Zhao

Iftikhar

Canner

Rajaii

Mahoney

et al.

Epidemiologic Trends in Oculoplastics-Related Emergency Department Visits in the United States, 2006-2015

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2022 38 199 206

10.1097/IOP.0000000000002047

34380999

Iftikhar

Canner

Hall

Ahmad

Srikumaran

Woreta

Characteristics of Orbital Floor Fractures in the United States from 2006 to 2017

Ophthalmology 2021 128 463 70

10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.06.065

32659309

Cade

Taneja

Jensen

Rajaii

Incidence, Characteristics, and Cost of Eyelid Lacerations in the United States from 2006 to 2014

Ophthalmol Ther 2023 12 263 79

10.1007/s40123-022-00605-9

36342648

PMC9834453

Dziuba

Kucharska

Madej-Kiełbik

Sulak

Wiśniewska-Wrona

Biopolymers and Biomaterials for Special Applications within the Context of the Circular Economy

Materials (Basel) 2021 14

7704

10.3390/ma14247704

34947300

PMC8708369

Fujioka

Goodyear

Tran

Polymers and Biomaterials for Posterior Lamella of the Eyelid and the Lacrimal System

Polymers (Basel) 2024 16

352

10.3390/polym16030352

38337241

PMC10857064

Yan

Liu

Yang

Yin

et al.

Biomaterials and tissue engineering strategies for posterior lamellar eyelid reconstruction: Replacement or regeneration?

Bioeng Transl Med 2023 8

e10497

10.1002/btm2.10497

37476060

PMC10354782

Fujioka

Daigle

Tran

The Use of Functional Biomaterials in Aesthetic and Functional Restoration in Orbital Surgery

J Funct Biomater 2024 15

10.3390/jfb15020033

38391886

PMC10889948

Gowthaman

NSK

Lim

Sreeraj

Amalraj

Gopi

Chapter 15 - Advantages of biopolymers over synthetic polymers: social, economic, and environmental aspects

Thomas

Gopi

Amalraj

Biopolymers and their Industrial Applications Elsevier; 2021. pp. 351–72.

10.1016/b978-0-12-819240-5.00015-8

Bibire

Yilmaz

Ghiciuc

Bibire

Dănilă

Biopolymers for Surgical Applications

Coatings 2022 12

211

10.3390/coatings12020211

Gipson

The ocular surface: the challenge to enable and protect vision: the Friedenwald lecture

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007 48 4390 8

10.1167/iovs.07-0770

17898256

PMC2886589

Vasanthakumar

Kumar

Rao

Anthropometric analysis of palpebral fissure dimensions and its position in South Indian ethnic adults

Oman Med J 2013 28 26 32

10.5001/omj.2013.06

23386941

PMC3562989

Pratchyapruit

Kikuchi

Gritiyarangasan

Aiba

Tagami

Functional analyses of the eyelid skin constituting the most soft and smooth area on the face: contribution of its remarkably large superficial corneocytes to effective water-holding capacity of the stratum corneum

Skin Res Technol 2007 13 169 75

10.1111/j.1600-0846.2007.00183.x

17374058

McCord

Walrath

Nahai

Concepts in eyelid biomechanics with clinical implications

Aesthet Surg J 2013 33 209 21

10.1177/1090820X12472692

23335646

Huang

Ding

Jin

Yang

et al.

Biomaterials for tarsal plate reconstruction and our innovative work

Chin J Plast Reconstr Surg 2021 3 150 4

10.1016/j.cjprs.2021.09.007

Gao

The micro-structure and biomechanics of eyelid tarsus

J Biomech 2022 133

110911

10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110911

35078023

McCulley

Shine

Meibomian gland function and the tear lipid layer

Ocul Surf 2003 1 97 106

10.1016/s1542-0124(12)70138-6

17075642

Nair

Syed

Chan

IYM

Gorelik

Chankowsky

Carpio-O’Donovan

The forgotten lacrimal gland and lacrimal drainage apparatus: pictorial review of CT and MRI findings and differential diagnosis

Br J Radiol 2022 95

20211333

10.1259/bjr.20211333

35522773

PMC10996330

Malki

Perspective: Lacrimal gland biopsy, is it important?

Saudi J Ophthalmol 2009 23 141 2

10.1016/j.sjopt.2009.08.001

23960850

PMC3729317

Obata

Anatomy and histopathology of the human lacrimal gland

Cornea 2006 25 S82 9

10.1097/01.ico.0000247220.18295.d3

17001201

Herbert

Rose

Air reflux after external dacryocystorhinostomy

Arch Ophthalmol 2007 125 1674 6

10.1001/archopht.125.12.1674

18071121

Örge

Boente

The lacrimal system

Pediatr Clin North Am 2014 61 529 39

10.1016/j.pcl.2014.03.002

24852150

Barry

Wolbert

Mozaffari

Ray

Abstract: The Impact of Age, Injury Severity, and Mechanism on Orbital Blow-out Fracture Patterns after Blunt Trauma: An 11-Year Review

Plast Reconstr Surg Global Open 2018 6

10.1097/01.gox.0000546779.03737.04

Soliman

Poulsen

Parsikia

Mbekeani

Epidemiology of Orbital Fractures – Analysis of National Trauma Data Bank

Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2017 58

5942

Toivari

Suominen

Apajalahti

Lindqvist

Snäll

Thorén

Isolated Orbital Fractures Are Severe Among Geriatric Patients

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018 76 388 95

10.1016/j.joms.2017.09.019

29100833

Gervasio

AYP

Orbital fracture management and race

Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 2016 57

3046

Zhou

Liu

Yang

Ocular trauma in patients with maxillofacial fractures

J Craniofac Surg 2014 25 519 23

10.1097/SCS.0000000000000683

24561369

Seifert

Mainka

Herrera-Vizcaino

Verboket

Sader

Orbital floor fractures: epidemiology and outcomes of 1594 reconstructions

Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2022 48 1427 36

10.1007/s00068-021-01716-x

34128084

PMC9001234

Bacharach

Lee

Harrison

Freddo

A review of acquired blepharoptosis: prevalence, diagnosis, and current treatment options

Eye (Lond) 2021 35 2468 81

10.1038/s41433-021-01547-5

33927356

PMC8376882

Koka

Patel

Ptosis Correction Treasure Island (FL)

StatPearls Publishing

2024

30969650

Deady

Morrell

Sutton

Recognising aponeurotic ptosis

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1989 52 996 8

10.1136/jnnp.52.8.996

2795069

PMC1031841

Pavone

Cho

Praticò

Falsaperla

Ruggieri

Jin

Ptosis in childhood: A clinical sign of several disorders: Case series reports and literature review

Medicine (Baltimore) 2018 97

e12124

10.1097/MD.0000000000012124

30200099

PMC6133583

Priya

Guha

Mittal

Sharma

Alam

Pediatric ocular motor cranial nerve palsy: Demographics and etiological profile

Indian J Ophthalmol 2021 69 1142 8

10.4103/ijo.IJO_1803_20

33913847

PMC8186605

Martin

Horner Syndrome: A Clinical Review

ACS Chem Neurosci 2018 9 177 86

10.1021/acschemneuro.7b00405

29260849

Park

Akella

Aakalu

A review of surgical management of progressive myogenic ptosis

Orbit 2023 42 11 24

10.1080/01676830.2022.2122514

36178005

PMC10329817

Sieb

Myasthenia gravis: an update for the clinician

Clin Exp Immunol 2014 175 408 18

10.1111/cei.12217

24117026

PMC3927901

Hirano

Pitceathly

RDS

Progressive external ophthalmoplegia

Handb Clin Neurol 2023 194 9 21

10.1016/B978-0-12-821751-1.00018-X

36813323

PMC10440731

Yamashita

Recent Progress in Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy

J Clin Med 2021 10

1375

10.3390/jcm10071375

33805441

PMC8036457

McCoskey

Yoon

Traumatic Ptosis

Int Ophthalmol Clin 2024 64 1 9

10.1097/IIO.0000000000000489

38525978

Kwitko

Patel

Blepharoplasty Ptosis Surgery Treasure Island (FL)

StatPearls Publishing

2024

29493921

Wong

Hsieh

MKH

Mendelson

Upper Eyelid Ptosis Correction with Levator Advancement Using the Levator Musculoaponeurotic Junction Formula in White Patients

Plast Reconstr Surg 2024 153 1403 14

10.1097/PRS.0000000000010889

37387609

PMC11104497

Fatani

Kamal

AlSulaiman

Müller muscle-Conjunctival Resection (MMCR) Surgery: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Eur J Ophthalmol 2024 [Epub ahead of print]

10.1177/11206721241249505

38659353

Dallalzadeh

Park

Korn

Kikkawa

Liu

Minimal Dissection Direct Frontalis Muscle Advancement Flap for Congenital Ptosis Repair

J Craniofac Surg 2021 32 2358 61

10.1097/SCS.0000000000007761

34054081

Tomioka

Okazaki

Matsutani

Frontalis Suspension through Infrabrow Skin Excision for Blepharoptosis in Asian Patients

Plast Reconstr Surg 2024 154 1015e 9e

10.1097/PRS.0000000000011207

37983831

Spoor

Kwitko

Blepharoptosis repair by fascia lata suspension with direct tarsal and frontalis fixation

Am J Ophthalmol 1990 109 314 7

10.1016/s0002-9394(14)74557-x

2309864

Esmaeli

Chung

Pashby

Long-term results of frontalis suspension using irradiated, banked fascia lata

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1998 14 159 63

10.1097/00002341-199805000-00002

9612804

Simon

GJB

Macedo

Schwarcz

Wang

McCann

Goldberg

Frontalis suspension for upper eyelid ptosis: evaluation of different surgical designs and suture material

Am J Ophthalmol 2005 140 877 85

10.1016/j.ajo.2005.05.031

16214102

Bajaj

Sastry

Ghose

Betharia

Pushker

Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene suture for frontalis suspension as compared to polybutylate-coated braided polyester

Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2004 32 415 9

10.1111/j.1442-9071.2004.00818.x

15281978

Kalin-Hajdu

Attas-Fox

Huang

Hardy

Codère

Comparison of Two Polypropylene Frontalis Suspension Techniques in 92 Patients With Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2017 33 57 60

10.1097/IOP.0000000000000648

26866330

Agarwal

Joseph

Naik

Delayed infections following polybutylate-coated polyester (Ethibond) suture frontalis suspension surgery for severe blepharoptosis

Orbit 2024 43 559 65

10.1080/01676830.2024.2338789

38687955

Carter

Meecham

Seiff

Silicone frontalis slings for the correction of blepharoptosis: indications and efficacy

Ophthalmology 1996 103 623 30

10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30643-x

8618762

Walang

Rath

Sharma

Nontuberculous mycobacterial infection after frontalis sling surgery using silicone rod

J Ophthalmic Inflamm Infect 2012 2 219 21

10.1007/s12348-012-0073-y

22477624

PMC3500978

Hostovsky

Waisbourd

Leibovitch

Orbital inflammation as a late complication of frontalis silicone elastomer sling operation for congenital ptosis

J AAPOS 2010 14 371 2

10.1016/j.jaapos.2010.05.005

20637668

Mansory

ASA

Factors Affecting the Outcome of Frontalis Sling Surgery in Patients with Severe Blepharoptosis

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020 8

e3125

10.1097/GOX.0000000000003125

33133970

PMC7544182

Wasserman

Sprunger

Helveston

Comparison of materials used in frontalis suspension

Arch Ophthalmol 2001 119 687 91

10.1001/archopht.119.5.687

11346396

Emsen

A new ptosis correction technique: a modification of levator aponeurosis advancement

J Craniofac Surg 2008 19 669 74

10.1097/SCS.0b013e31806901b8

18520363

Levator advancement #2 [Internet]

Iowa City: The University of Iowa; c2019 [cited 2015 Oct 23]. Available from: https://eyerounds.org/video/plastics/6/5-levator-advancement.htm#gsc.tab=0

McDonald

Minimally invasive levator advancement: a practical approach to eyelid ptosis repair

Semin Plast Surg 2007 21 41 6

10.1055/s-2007-967747

20567656

PMC2884830

McCulley

Kersten

Kulwin

Feuer

Outcome and influencing factors of external levator palpebrae superioris aponeurosis advancement for blepharoptosis

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2003 19 388 93

10.1097/01.IOP.0000087071.78407.9A

14506424

Gregerson

Cho

Tarsal Buckling and Entropion after Levator Aponeurosis Advancement in Patients with Floppy Eyelid Syndrome

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2024 40 e9 11

10.1097/IOP.0000000000002502

38241628

Finsterer

Ptosis: causes, presentation, and management

Aesthetic Plast Surg 2003 27 193 204

10.1007/s00266-003-0127-5

12925861

Frontalis Suspension Procedure—EyeWiki [Internet]

EyeWiki; [cited 2024 Aug 2]. Available from: https://eyewiki.org/Frontalis_Suspension_Procedure#Surgical_Technique

Fechner

Kappen

IFPM

van Rooij

JAF

van der Lei

Posterior Müller Muscle-Conjunctival Resection as a First Step to Treat Eyelid Ptosis: Clinical Results and Treatment Algorithm

Aesthet Surg J Open Forum 2024 6

ojad111

10.1093/asjof/ojad111

38887214

PMC11181947

Goldey

Baylis

Goldberg

Shorr

Frontalis muscle flap advancement for correction of blepharoptosis

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2000 16 83 93

10.1097/00002341-200003000-00002

10749154

Islam

Rehman

Khan

Frontalis muscle flap advancement for jaw-winking ptosis

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2002 18 365 9

10.1097/00002341-200209000-00008

12352823

Medel

Alonso

Giralt

Torres

González-Candial

García-Arumí

Frontalis muscle flap advancement with a pulley in the levator aponeurosis in patients with complete ptosis and deep-set eyes

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2006 22 441 4

10.1097/01.iop.0000244514.66424.bd

17117098

Allard

Durairaj

Current techniques in surgical correction of congenital ptosis

Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2010 17 129 33

10.4103/0974-9233.63073

20616918

PMC2892127

Lokdarshi

Pushker

Kashyap

Bajaj

Shameer

Squamous papilloma of the eyelid margin: Lamellar division and cryotherapy

Oman J Ophthalmol 2020 13 105 6

10.4103/ojo.OJO_47_2018

32792811

PMC7394072

Stokkermans

Prendes

Benign Eyelid Lesions Treasure Island (FL)

StatPearls Publishing

2024

35881760

Desai

Walen

Holds

Branham

Divided nevus of the eyelid: review of embryology, pathology and treatment

Am J Otolaryngol 2013 34 223 9

10.1016/j.amjoto.2013.01.004

23380310

Al-Rohil

Meyer

Slodkowska

Carlson

Pigmented eyelid cysts revisited: apocrine retention cyst chromhidrosis

Am J Dermatopathol 2014 36 318 26

10.1097/DAD.0b013e3182a23a87

24247572

Margo

Waltz

Basal cell carcinoma of the eyelid and periocular skin

Surv Ophthalmol 1993 38 169 92

10.1016/0039-6257(93)90100-l

8235999

Sato

Takahashi

Toshiyasu

Tsuji

Hanai

Homma

Squamous cell carcinoma of the eyelid

Jpn J Clin Oncol 2024 54 4 12

10.1093/jjco/hyad127

37747408

PMC10773209

Song

Jia

Fan

An Update on Eyelid Sebaceous Cell Carcinoma

Int Ophthalmol Clin 2019 59 1 11

10.1097/IIO.0000000000000272

30908275

North

Habib

Yoon

Merkel cell carcinoma of the eyelid: A review

Surv Ophthalmol 2019 64 659 67

10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.03.002

30871952

Gniesmer

Sonntag

Schiemenz

Ranjbar

Heindl

Varde

et al.

Diagnosis and treatment of malignant eyelid tumors

Ophthalmologie 2024 121 33 9

10.1007/s00347-023-01945-y

37851118

Alghoul

Pacella

McClellan

Codner

Eyelid reconstruction

Plast Reconstr Surg 2013 132 288e 302e

10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182958e6b

23897357

Yano

Karakawa

Shibata

Fuse

Suzuki

Kuramoto

et al.

Ideal esthetic and functional full-thickness lower eyelid “like with like” reconstruction using a combined Hughes flap and swing skin flap technique

J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2021 74 3015 21

10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.119

34023240

Alghoul

Kearney

Pacella

Purnell

Eyelid Reconstruction

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019 7

e2520

10.1097/GOX.0000000000002520

31942310

PMC6908339

Chang

Suh

Fortes

Zheng

Cheng

Forehead galeal pericranial flap for single-staged total upper eyelid reconstruction in sebaceous gland carcinoma excision

Int Med Case Rep J 2017 10 309 12

10.2147/IMCRJ.S141373

28919826

PMC5592914

Czyz

Cahill

Foster

Michels

Clark

Rich

Reconstructive options for the medial canthus and eyelids following tumor excision

Saudi J Ophthalmol 2011 25 67 74

10.1016/j.sjopt.2010.10.009

23960904

PMC3729517

Shin

Chu

Kim

Paik

Yang

Surgical Feasibility of Curtler-Beard Reconstruction for Large Upper Eyelid Defect

J Craniofac Surg 2019 30 2181 3

10.1097/SCS.0000000000005732

31283641

Mandal

Fleming

Reddy

Fowler

Total Upper Eyelid Reconstruction with Modified Cutler-Beard Procedure Using Autogenous Auricular Cartilage

J Clin Diagn Res 2016 10 NC01 4

10.7860/JCDR/2016/20303.8239

27656473

PMC5028545

Abbasi

Kamil

Faisal

Saad

Khan

Upper Eyelid Reconstruction Surgeries; Comparison Of Outcomes Between Reverse Tenzel Flap Versus Cutler Beard Flap Procedure

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2022 34 36 40

10.55519/JAMC-01-9045

35466623

Tasch

Pattiss

Lanthaler

Pierer

A Modified Rhomboid Flap for Medial Canthal Reconstruction

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2022 10

e4074

10.1097/GOX.0000000000004074

35186629

PMC8849418

Inkster

Leatherbarrow

The rhomboid flap in medial canthal reconstruction

Br J Ophthalmol 2001 85 556 9

10.1136/bjo.85.5.556

11316716

PMC1723965

Bullock

Hamdi

Double rhomboid flap in ophthalmic plastic surgery

Ophthalmic Surg 1980 11 431 4

7393525

Mitra

Panda

Singh

Thakar

Modified Mustardé Flap for Lower Eyelid Reconstruction in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Revisited

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023 75 2492 5

10.1007/s12070-023-03768-4

37636662

PMC10447676

Callahan

Mustardé flap lower lid reconstruction after malignancy

Ophthalmology 1980 87 279 86

10.1016/s0161-6420(80)35237-8

7393532

Mustarde rotational flap [Internet]

Iowa City: The University of Iowa; c2019 [cited 2015 Sep 1]. Available from: https://webeye.ophth.uiowa.edu/eyeforum/video/plastics/4/13-mustarde.htm#gsc.tab=0

Maghsodnia

Ebrahimi

Arshadi

Using bipedicled myocutaneous Tripier flap to correct ectropion after excision of lower eyelid basal cell carcinoma

J Craniofac Surg 2011 22 606 8

10.1097/SCS.0b013e318207f2b5

21403553

Nelson

Cohen

Modified Tripier flap for lateral eyelid reconstructions

J Drugs Dermatol 2011 10 199 201

21283927

Rohrich

Zbar

The evolution of the Hughes tarsoconjunctival flap for the lower eyelid reconstruction

Plast Reconstr Surg 1999 104 518 26

10.1097/00006534-199908000-00033

10654700

McKelvie

Ferguson

SGJ

Eyelid reconstruction using the “Hughes” tarsoconjunctival advancement flap: Long-term outcomes in 122 consecutive cases over a 13-year period

Orbit 2017 36 228 33

10.1080/01676830.2017.1310256

28437155

Hishmi

Koch

Matthaei

Bölke

Cursiefen

Heindl

Modified Hughes procedure for reconstruction of large full-thickness lower eyelid defects following tumor resection

Eur J Med Res 2016 21

10.1186/s40001-016-0221-1

27364344

PMC4929749

Rajak

Malhotra

Selva

The ‘over-the-top’ modified Cutler-Beard procedure for complete upper eyelid defect reconstruction

Orbit 2019 38 133 6

10.1080/01676830.2018.1444061

29513621

Yan

Liu

Yang

Yin

et al.

Surgical Strategies for Eyelid Defect Reconstruction: A Review on Principles and Techniques

Ophthalmol Ther 2022 11 1383 408

10.1007/s40123-022-00533-8

35690707

PMC9253217

Rajabi

Shahraki

Nozare

Moravej

Tavakolizadeh

Salim

et al.

External versus Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy for Primary Acquired Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction

Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2022 29 1 6

10.4103/meajo.meajo_238_21

36685339

PMC9846961

Baruah

Sarawgi

Sahu

Dubey

Gupta

Kumar

Polypropylene in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Novel Stent

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018 70 240 3

10.1007/s12070-017-1107-4

29977848

PMC6015561

100

Herzallah

Alzuraiqi

Bawazeer

Marglani

Alherabi

Mohamed

et al.

Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR): a comparative study between powered and non-powered technique

J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015 44

10.1186/s40463-015-0109-z

26694716

PMC4688968

101

Saha

Sinha

Phukan

Endoscopic versus external approach dacryocystorhinostomy: A comparative analysis

Niger Med J 2013 54 165 9

10.4103/0300-1652.114580

23901178

PMC3719242

102

Panda

Nayak

Mohapatra

Thakur

Vishwanath

Success and complications of endoscopic laser dacryocystorhinostomy vs. external dacryocystorhinostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Indian J Ophthalmol 2023 71 3290 8

10.4103/IJO.IJO_3334_22

37787224

PMC10683697

103

Chiang

Saadat

Spitz

Bryar

Chambers

Etiology of orbital fractures at a level I trauma center in a large metropolitan city

Taiwan J Ophthalmol 2016 6 26 31

10.1016/j.tjo.2015.12.002

29018706

PMC5602121

104

Boyette

Pemberton

Bonilla-Velez

Management of orbital fractures: challenges and solutions

Clin Ophthalmol 2015 9 2127 37

10.2147/OPTH.S80463

26604678

PMC4655944

105

Garcia

Ferrer

Surgical indications of orbital fractures depending on the size of the fault area determined by computed tomography: A systematic review

Rev Esp Cir Oral Maxilofac 2016 38 42 8

10.1016/j.maxile.2015.12.001

106

Bronstein

Bruce

Bakhos

Ishaq

Joyce

Cimino

Surgical Approach to Orbital Floor Fractures: Comparing Complication Rates Between Subciliary and Subconjunctival Approaches

Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2020 13 45 8

10.1177/1943387520904893

32642031

PMC7311850

107

Palavalli

Huayllani

Gokun

Janis

Surgical Approaches to Orbital Fractures: A Practical and Systematic Review

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023 11

e4967

10.1097/GOX.0000000000004967

37197012

PMC10185000

108

Patel

Sobota

Patel

Greene

Millman

Comparison of transconjunctival versus subciliary approaches for orbital fractures: a review of 60 cases

J Craniomaxillofac Trauma 1998 4 17 21

11951434

109

Rohrich

Janis

Adams

WP Jr

Subciliary versus subtarsal approaches to orbitozygomatic fractures

Plast Reconstr Surg 2003 111 1708 14

10.1097/01.PRS.0000054209.18400.4E

12655219

110

Wilson

Ellis

E 3rd

Surgical approaches to the infraorbital rim and orbital floor: the case for the subtarsal approach

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006 64 104 7

10.1016/j.joms.2005.09.018

16360865

111

Sivam

Enninghorst

The Dilemma of Reconstructive Material Choice for Orbital Floor Fracture: A Narrative Review

Medicines (Basel) 2022 9

10.3390/medicines9010006

35049939

PMC8778999

112

Dubois

Steenen

Gooris

PJJ

Bos

RRM

Becking

Controversies in orbital reconstruction-III. Biomaterials for orbital reconstruction: a review with clinical recommendations

Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016 45 41 50

10.1016/j.ijom.2015.06.024

26250602

113

Bicak

Hale

Day

Bilateral Orbital Reconstruction With Autologous Bone Graft After Gunshot Wound to Upper Midface

Cureus 2021 13

e13611

10.7759/cureus.13611

33816010

PMC8011473

114

Sabhlok

Waknis

Gadre

Applications of coronoid process as a bone graft in maxillofacial surgery

J Craniofac Surg 2014 25 577 80

10.1097/SCS.0000000000000624

24621702

115

Starch-Jensen

Deluiz

Deb

Bruun

Tinoco

EMB

Harvesting of Autogenous Bone Graft from the Ascending Mandibular Ramus Compared with the Chin Region: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Focusing on Complications and Donor Site Morbidity

J Oral Maxillofac Res 2020 11

10.5037/jomr.2020.11301

33262880

PMC7644273

116

Krishnan

Johnson

Orbital floor reconstruction with autogenous mandibular symphyseal bone grafts

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1997 55 327 32

10.1016/s0278-2391(97)90117-8

9120694

117

Anitha

Maheswari

Sethurajan

Mandibular symphysis graft versus iliac cortical graft in reconstructing floor in orbital blow out fracture: A comparative study

Ann Maxillofac Surg 2012 2 24 9

10.4103/2231-0746.95312

23482420

PMC3591074

118

Gart

Gosain

Evidence-based medicine: Orbital floor fractures

Plast Reconstr Surg 2014 134 1345 55

10.1097/PRS.0000000000000719

25415098

119

Gareb

Van

Bakelen NB

Vissink

Bos

RRM

Van

Minnen B

Titanium or Biodegradable Osteosynthesis in Maxillofacial Surgery? In Vitro and In Vivo Performances

Polymers (Basel) 2022 14

2782

10.3390/polym14142782

35890557

PMC9316877

120

Buijs

Stegenga

Bos

RRM

Efficacy and safety of biodegradable osteofixation devices in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a systematic review

J Dent Res 2006 85 980 9

10.1177/154405910608501102

17062736

121

Gareb

van Bakelen

Buijs

Jansma

de Visscher

JGAM

Hoppenreijs

TJM

et al.

Comparison of the long-term clinical performance of a biodegradable and a titanium fixation system in maxillofacial surgery: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

PLoS One 2017 12

e0177152

10.1371/journal.pone.0177152

28493922

PMC5426637

122

Yaremchuk

Posnick

Resolving controversies related to plate and screw fixation in the growing craniofacial skeleton

J Craniofac Surg 1995 6 525 38

10.1097/00001665-199511000-00023

9020748

123

Baino

Biomaterials and implants for orbital floor repair

Acta Biomater 2011 7 3248 66

10.1016/j.actbio.2011.05.016

21651997

124

Totir

Ciuluvica

Dinu

Careba

Gradinaru

Biomaterials for orbital fractures repair

J Med Life 2014 7 62 4

27057250

PMC4813619

125

Gunarajah

Samman

Biomaterials for repair of orbital floor blowout fractures: a systematic review

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013 71 550 70

10.1016/j.joms.2012.10.029

23422151

126

Bratton

Durairaj

Orbital implants for fracture repair

Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2011 22 400 6

10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283499409

21730844

127

Zunz

Blanc

Leibovitch

Traumatic orbital floor fractures: repair with autogenous bone grafts in a tertiary trauma center

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012 70 584 92

10.1016/j.joms.2011.02.048

21664743

128

Lau

McDermott

A Method for Combining Thin and Thick Malleable Titanium Mesh in the Repair of Cranial Defects

Cureus 2015 7

e267

10.7759/cureus.267

26180691

PMC4494541

129

Polacco

Kahng

Sudoko

Gosselin

Orbital Floor Reconstruction: A Comparison of Outcomes between Absorbable and Permanent Implant Systems

Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr 2019 12 193 8

10.1055/s-0038-1651514

31428243

PMC6697472

130

O’Connor

Pinzas

Sivam

Titanium Fan Plate Reconstruction for Lateral Orbital Traumatic Defects

J Craniofac Surg 2021 32 e378 80

10.1097/SCS.0000000000007299

33273199

131

Madill

Inkster

Maloof

Leatherbarrow

Medpor porous polyethylene implants in orbital blowout fracture repair

Eye (Lond) 2001 15 578 82

10.1038/eye.2001.188

11702965

132

Kwon

Kim

Seo

Jeong

Jung

Shim

The Role of Resorbable Plate and Artificial Bone Substitute in Reconstruction of Large Orbital Floor Defect

Biomed Res Int 2016 2016

1358312

10.1155/2016/1358312

27517041

PMC4969524

133

Baino

Potestio

Orbital implants: State-of-the-art review with emphasis on biomaterials and recent advances

Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2016 69 1410 28

10.1016/j.msec.2016.08.003

27612842

134

Martel

Baillif

Nahon-Esteve

Gastaud

Bertolotto

Lassalle

et al.

Orbital exenteration: an updated review with perspectives

Surv Ophthalmol 2021 66 856 76

10.1016/j.survophthal.2021.01.008

33524457

135

Moshfeghi

Finger

Enucleation

Surv Ophthalmol 2000 44 277 301

10.1016/s0039-6257(99)00112-5

10667436

136

Catalu

Istrate

Voinea

Mitulescu

Popescu

Radu

Ocular implants-methods of ocular reconstruction following radical surgical interventions

Rom J Ophthalmol 2018 62 15 23

29796430

PMC5959020

137

Artioli

Schellini S

Barbarini

Ferraz LC

Rahdar

Baino

Applications of Bioceramics in the Management of Orbital Floor Factures and Anophthalmic Cavity: a Review

IJMSE 2022 19 1 15

10.22068/ijmse.2544

138

Baino

Verné

Fiume

Peitl

Zanotto

Brandão

et al.

Bioactive glass and glass-ceramic orbital implants

Int J Appl Ceram Technol 2019 16 1850 63

10.1111/ijac.13236

139

Crovace

Souza

Chinaglia

Peitl

Zanotto

Biosilicate^®—A multipurpose, highly bioactive glass-ceramic

. J Non-Cryst Solids 2016 432 90 110

10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2015.03.022

140

Cameron

Tong

Juniat

Patel

Dhatrak

Selva

Extensive orbital inflammation in an anophthalmic socket: is the Bioceramic implant a bystander or a participant?

Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep 2022 28

101721

10.1016/j.ajoc.2022.101721

36238354

PMC9552018

141

Jordan

Gilberg

Mawn

The bioceramic orbital implant: experience with 107 implants

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2003 19 128 35

10.1097/01.IOP.0000056027.63698.FE

12644759

142

Fiume

Magnaterra

Rahdar

Verné

Baino

Hydroxyapatite for Biomedical Applications: A Short Overview

Ceramics 2021 4 542 63

10.3390/ceramics4040039

143

Thiry

Holz

Voelter

Steiner

Nuss

Marchionatti

Eye enucleation and exenteration in -cattle: a retrospective study of 38 cases (2013-2020)

Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 2022 164 687 93

10.17236/sat00368

36193779

144

Vichitvejpaisal

Dalvin

Lally

Shields

Delayed implant infection with Cutibacterium acnes (Propionibacterium acnes) 30 years after silicone sheet orbital floor implant

Orbit 2020 39 139 42

10.1080/01676830.2019.1605613

31021283

145

Agahan

Tan

Use of hollow polymethylmethacrylate as an orbital implant

Philipp J Ophthalmol 2004 29 21 5

146

Lin

Liao

Long-term complications of different porous orbital implants: a 21-year review

Br J Ophthalmol 2017 101 681 5

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308932

27474155

147

Groth

Bhatnagar

Clearihue

Goldberg

Douglas

Long-term efficacy of biomodeled polymethyl methacrylate implants for orbitofacial defects

Arch Facial Plast Surg 2006 8 381 9

10.1001/archfaci.8.6.381

17116785

148

Taneja

Aldoais

Kaliki

Primary orbital polymethylmethacrylate implant following primary enucleation for retinoblastoma: a study of 321 cases

Orbit 2021 40 127 32

10.1080/01676830.2020.1750040

32252576

149

Jung

Cho

Paik

Yang

Long-term surgical outcomes of porous polyethylene orbital implants: a review of 314 cases

Br J Ophthalmol 2012 96 494 8

10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300132

22096144

PMC3308469

150

Shevchenko

Boss

Shah

Droste

Hassan

Alphasphere as a successful ocular implant in primary enucleation and secondary orbital implant exchange

Orbit 2013 32 161 5

10.3109/01676830.2013.772208

23514047

151

G AP

Bajaj

John

Chandran

Kumar

et al.

A review on the recent applications of synthetic biopolymers in 3D printing for biomedical applications

J Mater Sci Mater Med 2023 34

10.1007/s10856-023-06765-9

37982917

PMC10661719

152

Baranwal

Barse

Fais

Delogu

Kumar

Biopolymer: A Sustainable Material for Food and Medical Applications

Polymers (Basel) 2022 14

983

10.3390/polym14050983

35267803

PMC8912672

153

Singh

Gautam

Sharma

Jain

Chauhan

Biopolymers and their classifications

Thomas

Gopi

Amalraj

Biopolymers and their Industrial Applications Elsevier; 2021. pp. 21–44.

154

Siracusa

Blanco

Bio-Polyethylene (Bio-PE), Bio-Polypropylene (Bio-PP) and Bio-Poly (ethylene terephthalate) (Bio-PET): Recent Developments in Bio-Based Polymers Analogous to Petroleum-Derived Ones for Packaging and Engineering Applications

Polymers (Basel) 2020 12

1641

10.3390/polym12081641

32718011

PMC7465145

155

Mok

Lessard

Cordoba

Harris

Nikolis

A review of materials currently used in orbital floor reconstruction

Can J Plast Surg 2004 12 134 40

10.1177/229255030401200302

24115885

PMC3792801

156

Carter

Stewart

Khan

Archer

Holds

Seiff

et al.

Infection after blepharoplasty with and without carbon dioxide laser resurfacing

Ophthalmology 2003 110 1430 2

10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00447-0

12867404

157

Brigham

Sinskey

Applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates in the medical industry

Int J Biotechnol Wellness Ind 2012 1

10.6000/1927-3037.2012.01.01.03

158

Shishatskaya

Volova

Puzyr

Mogilnaya

Efremov

Tissue response to the implantation of biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate sutures

J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004 15 719 28

10.1023/b:jmsm.0000030215.49991.0d

15346741

159

Joseph

James

Kalarikkal

Thomas

Advances in biopolymer based surgical sutures

Thomas

Coates

Whiteside

Joseph

Nair

Advanced Technologies and Polymer Materials for Surgical Sutures Woodhead Publishing; 2023. pp. 1–17.

160

de la Harpe

Marimuthu

Kondiah

PPD

Kumar

Ubanako

Choonara

Synthesis of a novel monofilament bioabsorbable suture for biomedical applications

J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2022 110 2189 210

10.1002/jbm.b.35069

35373911

PMC9546231

161

Liu

Zhang

Liu

Zhang

et al.

Preparation and properties of poly (lactic acid) (PLA) suture loaded with PLA microspheres enclosed drugs (PM-Ds)

J Text Inst 2019 110 1596 605

10.1080/00405000.2019.1610999

162

Younesi

Donmez

Islam

Akkus

Heparinized collagen sutures for sustained delivery of PDGF-BB: Delivery profile and effects on tendon-derived cells In-Vitro

Acta Biomater 2016 41 100 9

10.1016/j.actbio.2016.05.036

27240725

PMC4969204

163

Viju

Thilagavathi

Effect of chitosan coating on the characteristics of silk-braided sutures

J Ind Text 2013 42 256 68

10.1177/1528083711435713

164

Sudha

Dhurai

Ponthangam

Development of herbal drug loaded antimicrobial silk suture

Indian J Fibre Text Res 2017 42 286 90

165

Prabha

Sowndarya

Ram

PJVS

Rubini

Hari

BNV

Aruni

et al.

Chitosan-Coated Surgical Sutures Prevent Adherence and Biofilms of Mixed Microbial Communities

Curr Microbiol 2021 78 502 12

10.1007/s00284-020-02306-7

33389059

166

Goel

Kamal

Bodh

Kumar

Kishore

Malik

KPS

et al.

Lower eyelid suspension using polypropylene suture for the correction of punctal ectropion

J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013 41 e111 6

10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.036

23357131

167

Paxton

Allenby

Lewis

Woodruff

Biomedical applications of polyethylene

Eur Polym J 2019 118 412 28

10.1016/J.EURPOLYMJ.2019.05.037

168

Hussain

Naqvi

Abbas

Khan

Nawaz

Hussain

et al.

Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight-Polyethylene (UHMWPE) as a Promising Polymer Material for Biomedical Applications: A Concise Review

Polymers (Basel) 2020 12

323

10.3390/polym12020323

32033140

PMC7077409

169

Selvam

Thomas

Trousdale

Stevenson

Schechter

Mircheff

et al.

Tissue-engineered tear secretory system: functional lacrimal gland acinar cells cultured on matrix protein-coated substrata

J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2007 80 192 200

10.1002/jbm.b.30584

16850479

170

Selvam

Chang

Nakamura

Samant

Thomas

Trousdale

et al.

Microporous poly(L-lactic acid) membranes fabricated by polyethylene glycol solvent-cast/particulate leaching technique

Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2009 15 463 74

10.1089/ten.tec.2008.0431

19260769

PMC2821069

171

Zakour

KEW

Kaya

Matros

Hacker

Cheikh-Rouhou

Spaniol

et al.

Enhancement of lacrimal gland cell function by decellularized lacrimal gland derived hydrogel

Biofabrication 2024 16

10.1088/1758-5090/ad2082

38241707

172

Hsiao

Yang

Regulating temporospatial dynamics of morphogen for structure formation of the lacrimal gland by chitosan biomaterials

Biomaterials 2017 113 42 55

10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.10.012

27810641

173

Hsiao

Yang

Data supporting regulating temporospatial dynamics of morphogen for structure formation of the lacrimal gland by chitosan biomaterials

Data Brief 2016 10 108 15

10.1016/j.dib.2016.11.042

27981201

PMC5144649

174

Pinilla

Fernández-Prieto

Asencio

Arbizu

Peláez

Frutos

Nasolacrimal stents for the treatment of epiphora: technical problems and long-term results

Orbit 2006 25 75 81

10.1080/01676830500499232

16754213

175

Wormald

Powered endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy

Laryngoscope 2002 112 69 72

10.1097/00005537-200201000-00013

11802041

176

Zhou

Wang

Endoscopic Intranasal dacryocystorhinostomy in forty-five patients

Chin Med J (Engl) 1996 109 747 8

9275348

177

Weidenbecher

Hosemann

Buhr

Endoscopic endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy: results in 56 patients

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1994 103 363 7

10.1177/000348949410300505

8179252

178

Aslan

Katırcıoğlu Y

Kaderli

Şingar

Özdemir E

Örnek

Clinical Results of the Use of Amniotic Membrane Transplantation Alone or in Combination with Adjuvant Therapies in Conjunctival Fornix Reconstruction

Turk J Ophthalmol 2022 52 237 45

10.4274/tjo.galenos.2021.77019

36016847

PMC9421934

179

Okuyucu

Gorur

Oksuz

Akoglu

Endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy with silicone, polypropylene, and T-tube stents; randomized controlled trial of efficacy and safety

Am J Rhinol Allergy 2015 29 63 8

10.2500/ajra.2015.29.4119

25590323

180

Dutta

Ghatak

Bandyopadhyay

Should Silicone Lacrimal Stenting be a Better Choice for Primary Endoscopic Powered Dacryocystorhinostomy?

Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2023 75 496 502

10.1007/s12070-022-03299-4

36532235

PMC9741707

181

Baek

Lee

Choi

Jang

Kim

Predictors of Silicone Tube Intubation Success in Patients with Lacrimal Drainage System Stenosis

Korean J Ophthalmol 2016 30 157 62

10.3341/kjo.2016.30.3.157

27247514

PMC4878975

182

Kasaee

Eshraghi

Ameli

Ghahvehchian

Jamshidian-Tehrani

Nabavi

et al.

Pulled versus Pushed Monocanalicular Silicone Intubation in Adults with Lacrimal Drainage System Stenosis: A Comparative Case Series

J Ophthalmol 2021 2021

5592039

10.1155/2021/5592039

34513085

PMC8428989

183

Park

Lee

Shin

Kang

Shin

Son

et al.

Nasolacrimal stent with shape memory as an advanced alternative to silicone products

Acta Biomater 2020 101 273 84

10.1016/j.actbio.2019.11.001

31707084

184

Dai

Xiao

Zheng

Shen

et al.

In Situ Forming Hydrogel as a Tracer and Degradable Lacrimal Plug for Dry Eye Treatment

Adv Healthc Mater 2022 11

e2200678

10.1002/adhm.202200678

35841368

185

Chaloupka

Motwani

Seifalian

Development of a new lacrimal drainage conduit using POSS nanocomposite

Biotechnol Appl Biochem 2011 58 363 70

10.1002/bab.53

21995539

186

Gao

Feng

Lou

Zhu

Gao

et al.

A biomimetic tarso-conjunctival biphasic scaffold for eyelid reconstruction in vivo

Biomater Sci 2019 7 3373 85

10.1039/c9bm00431a

31233046

187

Gierek

Łabuś

Kitala

Lorek

Ochała-Gierek

Zagórska

et al.

Human Acellular Dermal Matrix in Reconstructive Surgery-A Review

Biomedicines 2022 10

2870

10.3390/biomedicines10112870

36359387

PMC9687949

188

Sarkozyova

Dragunova

Bukovcan

Ferancikova

Breza

Zilinska

et al.

Preparation and processing of human allogenic dermal matrix for utilization in reconstructive surgical procedures

Bratisl Lek Listy 2020 121 386 94

10.4149/BLL_2020_063

32484701

189

Chen

Zhang

Han

et al.

Use of the Acellular Dermal Matrix (ADM) to Reconstruct Full-thickness Eyelid Defects

J Craniofac Surg 2023 34 e733 6

10.1097/SCS.0000000000009499

37428985

190

Huang

Fang

Wang

Liao

Clinical observation on healing of tarsal plate defect after reconstruction with xenogeneic acellular dermal matrix

BMC Ophthalmol 2022 22

326

10.1186/s12886-022-02540-6

35906559

PMC9335983

191

Barmettler

Heo

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Lower Eyelid Retraction Repair With Autologous Auricular Cartilage, Bovine Acellular Dermal Matrix (Surgimend), and Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix (Enduragen) Spacer Grafts

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2018 34 266 73

10.1097/IOP.0000000000000946

28658181

192

Sun

O’Connor

Milne

Biswas

Casson

Wood

et al.

Development of Macroporous Chitosan Scaffolds for Eyelid Tarsus Tissue Engineering

Tissue Eng Regen Med 2019 16 595 604

10.1007/s13770-019-00201-2

31824822

PMC6879684

193

Drechsler

Kunze

Kureshi

Grobe

Reichl

Geerling

et al.

Development of a conjunctival tissue substitute on the basis of plastic compressed collagen

J Tissue Eng Regen Med 2017 11 896 904

10.1002/term.1991

25676608

194

Sharma

Thenarasun

Kaur

Pushker

Khanna

Agarwal

et al.

Adjuvant Role of Amniotic Membrane Transplantation in Acute Ocular Stevens-Johnson Syndrome: A Randomized Control Trial

Ophthalmology 2016 123 484 91

10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.027

26686968

195

Ding

Hou

Eyelid and fornix reconstruction in abortive cryptophthalmos: a single-center experience over 12 years

Eye (Lond) 2017 31 1576 81

10.1038/eye.2017.94

28622309

PMC5684467

196

de Rötth

Plastic repair of conjunctival defects with fetal membranes

Arch Ophthalmol 1940 23 522 5

10.1001/archopht.1940.00860130586006

197

Singh

Gautam

Kaur

Zadeng

Role of amniotic membrane and full-thickness skin graft in reconstruction of kissing nevus of eyelids

Indian J Ophthalmol 2017 65 1219 21

10.4103/ijo.IJO_407_17

29133658

PMC5700600

198

Rahal

Meller

Manthey

Pförtner

Lang

Bechrakis

et al.

Midterm results of conjunctival reconstruction with buccal mucosa and amniotic membrane after resecting ocular surface squamous neoplasia of the fornix

Can J Ophthalmol 2023 58 543 9

10.1016/j.jcjo.2022.07.003

35940212

199

Bhattacharjee

Singh

Bhattacharjee

Amniotic membrane graft to reconstruct divided nevi of eyelids

BMJ Case Rep 2015 2015

bcr2014209020

10.1136/bcr-2014-209020

26009598

PMC4458619

200

Wisco

Case series: The use of a dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft to enhance healing in the repair of lower eyelid defects after Mohs micrographic surgery

JAAD Case Rep 2016 2 294 7

10.1016/j.jdcr.2016.06.002

27504483

PMC4969256

201

Reed

Giles

Johnson

Santamaria

Nelson

Appelo

et al.

Acute Reconstruction of Periorbital Trauma Resulting in Eyelid Anterior Lamella Loss With Simultaneous Full-thickness Skin Grafting and Amniotic Membrane Grafting: A Case Report

Mil Med 2022 187 e246 9

10.1093/milmed/usaa326

33331944

202

Borrelli

Unterlauft

Kleinsasser

Geerling

Decellularized porcine derived membrane (Tarsys®) for correction of lower eyelid retraction

Orbit 2012 31 187 9

10.3109/01676830.2012.669012

22551374

203

Liao

Wei

Correction of lower lid retraction using tarSys bioengineered grafts for graves ophthalmopathy

Am J Ophthalmol 2013 156 387 392.e1

10.1016/j.ajo.2013.03.017

23659973

204

Mancera

Schneider

Margo

Bajric

Inflammatory Reaction to Decellularized Porcine-Derived Xenograft for Lower Eyelid Retraction

Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2019 35 e95 7

10.1097/IOP.0000000000001416

31206458

205

Tan

Olver

Wright

Maini

Neoh

Dickinson

The use of porous polyethylene (Medpor) lower eyelid spacers in lid heightening and stabilisation

Br J Ophthalmol 2004 88 1197 200

10.1136/bjo.2003.029397

15317715

PMC1772304

206

Mavrikakis

Francis

Poitelea

Parkin

Brittain

Olver

Medpor lower eyelid spacer: does it biointegrate?

Orbit 2009 28 58 62

10.1080/01676830802414855

19229747

207

Feng

Zheng

Feng

Gao

et al.

A tarsus construct of a novel branched polyethylene with good elasticity for eyelid reconstruction in vivo

Regen Biomater 2020 7 259 69

10.1093/rb/rbaa001

32523728

PMC7266665

208

Zhou

Peng

Wang

Zheng

Wang

Chen

The use of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate) scaffolds for tarsal repair in eyelid reconstruction in the rat

Biomaterials 2010 31 7512 8

10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.06.044

20663550

209

Xie

Gao

Prado

ZND

Venkateswaran

Mousa

Salero

et al.

Establishment of a bi-layered tissue engineered conjunctiva using a 3D-printed melt electrowritten poly-(ε-caprolactone) scaffold

Int Ophthalmol 2023 43 215 32

10.1007/s10792-022-02418-y

35932420

PMC9902434

210

Chen

Yan

Zhang

Yan

Yao

et al.

3D-Printed Poly-Caprolactone Scaffolds Modified With Biomimetic Extracellular Matrices for Tarsal Plate Tissue Engineering

Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2020 8

219

10.3389/fbioe.2020.00219

32269990

PMC7109479

211

Mermer

Orban

RE Jr

Repair of orbital floor fractures with absorbable gelatin film

J Craniomaxillofac Trauma 1995 1 30 4

11951465

212

Parkin

Stevens

Stringham

Absorbable gelatin film verses silicone rubber sheeting in orbital fracture treatment

Laryngoscope 1987 97 1 3

10.1288/00005537-198701000-00001

3796165

213

Reddy

MSB

Ponnamma

Choudhary

Sadasivuni

A Comparative Review of Natural and Synthetic Biopolymer Composite Scaffolds

Polymers (Basel) 2021 13

1105

10.3390/polym13071105

33808492

PMC8037451

214

Neumann

Kevenhoerster

Biomaterials for craniofacial reconstruction

GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009 8

Doc08

10.3205/cto000060

22073101

PMC3199817

215

Vasile

Istrate

Iancu

Piticescu

Cursaru

Schmetterer

et al.

Biocompatible Materials for Orbital Wall Reconstruction-An Overview

Materials (Basel) 2022 15

2183

10.3390/ma15062183

35329635

PMC8954765

216

Pagel

Beck-Sickinger

Multifunctional biomaterial coatings: synthetic challenges and biological activity

Biol Chem 2017 398 3 22

10.1515/hsz-2016-0204

27636830

217

Wang

Guo

Liu

Wei

BMP-functionalised coatings to promote osteogenesis for orthopaedic implants

Int J Mol Sci 2014 15 10150 68

10.3390/ijms150610150

24914764

PMC4100145

218

Zheng

Zhao

Jing

Qin

Tian

et al.

Reconstruction of orbital floor defect with polylacticglycolide acid/recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 compound implanted material in sheep

Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi 2006 42 535 9. Chinese

16857135

219

AlSubaie

Al-Sharydah

Nassim

Alhawsawi

Orbital Floor Blowout Fracture Reconstruction Using Moldable Polymethyl Methacrylate: A Report of Two Cases and Their Imaging Findings

Open Access Emerg Med 2022 14 223 32

10.2147/OAEM.S359173

35656329

PMC9153998

220

Zare

Ghomi

Venkatraman

Ramakrishna

Silicone-based biomaterials for biomedical applications: Antimicrobial strategies and 3D printing technologies

J Appl Polym Sci 2021 138

50969

10.1002/app.50969

221

Schoen

Levy

Tam

Vyavahare

Pathological Calcification of Biomaterials

Wagner

Sakiyama-Elbert

Zhang

Yaszemski

Biomaterials Science 4th ed. Academic Press; 2020. pp. 973–94.

222

Singha

Locklin

Handa

A review of the recent advances in antimicrobial coatings for urinary catheters

Acta Biomater 2017 50 20 40

10.1016/j.actbio.2016.11.070

27916738

PMC5316300

223

Sundelin

Dafgård

Kopp EM

Complications associated with secondary orbital implantations

Acta Ophthalmol 2015 93 679 83

10.1111/aos.12818

26290377

224

Lee

Kang

Yun

Sun

Late Complication of a Silicone Implant Thirty Years after Orbital Fracture Reconstruction

Arch Craniofac Surg 2017 18 137 40

10.7181/acfs.2017.18.2.137

28913322

PMC5556896

225

Khalid

Chaudhry

Basics of hydroxyapatite—structure, synthesis, properties, and clinical applications

Khan

Chaudhry

Handbook of Ionic Substituted Hydroxyapatites Woodhead Publishing; 2020. pp. 85–115.

226

Fernández

MPR

Gehrke

Mazón

Calvo-Guirado

Aza

PND

Implant Stability of Biological Hydroxyapatites Used in Dentistry

Materials (Basel) 2017 10

644

10.3390/ma10060644

28773005

PMC5554025

227

Watanabe

Yamanaka

Rajak

Nakayama

Ueda

Sotozono

Assessment of a Consecutive Series of Orbital Floor Fracture Repairs With the Hess Area Ratio and the Use of Unsintered Hydroxyapatite Particles/Poly l-Lactide Composite Sheets for Orbital Fracture Reconstruction

J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2021 79 420 8

10.1016/j.joms.2020.09.019

33239204

228

Jang

Kim

Biodegradable implants for orbital wall fracture reconstruction

Arch Craniofac Surg 2020 21 99 105

10.7181/acfs.2020.00010

32380809

PMC7206463

229

Tsumiyama

Umeda

Ninomiya

Miyawaki

Use of Unsintered Hydroxyapatite and Poly-L-lactic Acid Composite Sheets for Management of Orbital Wall Fracture

J Craniofac Surg 2019 30 2001 3

10.1097/SCS.0000000000005734

31283640

230

Kohyama

Morishima

Arisawa

Kato

Immediate and long-term results of unsintered hydroxyapatite and poly L-lactide composite sheets for orbital wall fracture reconstruction

J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018 71 1069 75

10.1016/j.bjps.2018.03.006

29759951

231

Osaki

Tamura

Sakakibara

Nomura

Hashikawa

Terashi

Analysis of Orbital Blowout Fracture Location and Hess Area Ratio

J Craniofac Surg 2022 33 1042 5

10.1097/SCS.0000000000008334

36041103

232

Ridwan-Pramana

Wolff

Raziei

Ashton-James

Forouzanfar

Porous polyethylene implants in facial reconstruction: Outcome and complications

J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015 43 1330 4

10.1016/j.jcms.2015.06.022

26276064

233

Demir

Cİ

Yaşar

Arıcı

Alagöz

MŞ

Porous Polyethylene Implants in Orbital Floor Reconstruction: Outcome and Complications

Kocaeli Med J 2022 11 114 21

10.5505/ktd.2022.97355

234

Bhari

Pushker

Agrawal

Bajaj

Kashyap

Outcome of porous polyethylene implants in anophthalmic sockets with implant migration

Kerala J ophthalmol 2024 36 30 4

10.4103/kjo.kjo_28_22

235

Cha

Nam

Kim

Park

Choi

A comparative study of porous polyethylene versus absorbable polydextro- and polylevolactic-lactide plate in reconstruction of isolated medial orbital wall fracture

J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2022 75 782 7

10.1016/j.bjps.2021.08.023

34690092

236

Ozkaya

Erçöçen

Reconstruction of orbital floor fractures using a porous polyethylene implant: Outcomes in the early, intermediate and late postoperative periods

ENT Updates 2020 10 321 5

10.32448/entupdates.718393

237

Remulla

Rubin

Shore

Sutula

Townsend

Woog

et al.

Complications of porous spherical orbital implants

Ophthalmology 1995 102 586 93

10.1016/s0161-6420(95)30991-8

7536909

238

Christmas

Gordon

Murray

Tse

Johnson

Garonzik

et al.

Intraorbital implants after enucleation and their complications: a 10-year review

Arch Ophthalmol 1998 116 1199 203

10.1001/archopht.116.9.1199

9747679

239

Song

Sun

Fan

Long-term infectious complications of using porous polyethylene mesh for orbital fracture reconstruction

Medicine (Baltimore) 2016 95

e3819

10.1097/MD.0000000000003819

27336867

PMC4998305

240

Chen

Yang

Fan

The Evolution of Orbital Implants and Current Breakthroughs in Material Design, Selection, Characterization, and Clinical Use

Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2022 9

800998

10.3389/fbioe.2021.800998

35252161

PMC8891695