system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: OBJECTIVE, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Absorbable Implants, Adult, Bone Substitutes, Conjunctiva, Diplopia, Enophthalmos, Eye Movements, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Ocular Motility Disorders, Orbit, Orbital Fractures, Orbital Implants, Periosteum, Polyesters, Polyethylenes, Prosthesis-Related Infections, Reconstructive Surgical Procedures, Recovery of Function, Retrospective Studies, Safety, Treatment Outcome.
user
Do comparison of the outcomes of blowout fracture repair according to the orbital implant? Context: The clinical outcomes of blowout fracture repair classified by 2 types of orbital implants (Macropore and Medpor) were compared. The medical records of 331 patients with orbital fractures that were treated surgically by 1 surgeon at Gachon University Gil hospital, from March 2007 to March 2009, were reviewed. Patients who had diplopia or limited extraocular motion, significant enophthalmos (>2 mm), or a large fracture on a computed tomographic scan (>50% of the floor area) were enrolled. The clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received surgical repair using Macropore and those who had surgical repair using Medpor. One hundred six patients had surgical repair using Macropore and 225 patients were surgically treated with Medpor. Both the Macropore (n = 106) and the Medpor groups (n = 225) showed significant clinical improvement. The degree of preoperative/postoperative diplopia and limited extraocular motion was not different between the 2 groups. In addition, there was no difference in the preoperative/postoperative enophthalmos between the 2 groups.
assistant
Both Macropore and Medpor were associated with equally safe and satisfactory patient outcomes without notable complications. Final Decision: yes