This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:1402-1403.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The selection of materials for orbital floor reconstruction requires consideration of a number of variables in the decision process, and Chowdhury and Krause address many of these factors; their review of the literature is quite comprehensive. However, because of the nature of many of these studies, the information available to us is incomplete. Reports in the literature do not address uniformly the indications for surgery, the techniques of surgery, and the follow-up period of observation. There are also additional factors to consider such as the patient's health status and local conditions of injury. We can only treat on the bases of what we read, what basic science supports, and what we can confirm by our own experience.

I agree that autogenous materials are better for the repair of substantial orbital floor defects, but I am not sure what is meant by substantial. The criterion of a minimum width of 5 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Selection of Materials for Orbital Floor Reconstruction
Khalid Chowdhury and Gregory E. Krause
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124(12):1398-1401.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bone Grafting for Defects of the Orbital Floor
Robert M. Kellman
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124(12):1402.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT