The New Anatomical Classification System for Orbital Exenteration Defect. Issue 7 (October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cinar, Can; Arslan, Hakan; Bingol, Ugur Anil; Aydin, Yagmur; Cetinkale, Oguz
• Is Part Of: Journal of craniofacial surgery. Volume 28:Issue 7(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Subjects: Anatomical -- classification -- orbital exenteration -- reconstruction; Facial bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; 617.52
• DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003746
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-2275

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The unique anatomy of the orbita and the different behavior of each malignant tumor cause us to perform the various types of orbital exenteration that yields to varying defect each of which has own specific demands in terms of the reconstruction. Current classification of orbital exenteration defects seems not to be adequate to provide detailed description. This study reviews 50 exenteration defects to offer a more effective anatomical classification system. Methods: Over a 15 years period, 50 orbital exenteration defects in 47 patients were reconstructed. Defects were categorized according to the resected orbital wall, dura, and ethmoid resection. If the maxillectomy was performed, A or B was added to define the type of maxillectomy as partial (intact palate) or total maxillectomy, respectively. According to these criteria, 4 types of defect patterns were determined including Type 0 (n = 5) with intact orbital wall, Type I (n = 9) with sino-orbital fistula, Type II (n = 4) with crania-orbital fistula with intact dura, Type III (n = 6) with crania-orbital fistula associated with dura defect, and Type IV (n = 8) with cranio-nasal-orbital fistula. There were 12 partial (A) and 6 total maxillectomy (B) defects along with the orbital exenteration. Results: There was no major complication except one. The minor wound-healing problems occurred in 7 patients. Nine patients (19%) used prosthesis. Twenty-two (46.8%) patients chose a patch to cover the area. The remaining 16 patients were not able to use any type of prosthesis because of the reconstruction methods. Conclusion: The authors believe that the authors' anatomical classification system provides more precise description of the defect which eventually enhances the success rate of both reconstruction and resection.