We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

Orbital Floor Fracture Repair—Reply

Jason S. Hamilton, MD
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(4):301. doi:10.1001/archfaci.9.4.301.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In reply

I appreciate the comments made by Williams and Parmar. I would like to specifically address each of their suggested limitations to our study. First, Williams and Parmar argue that SupraFoil is not an appropriate material for orbital floor repair because it lacks the ability to retain a molded shape like titanium mesh implants. I disagree with this statement. The “ability [of an implant] to retain its molded shape” is not a criterion for successful restoration of the orbital floor after fracture. The goals of surgery are the elevation of herniated or entrapped orbital soft tissues and the placement of an interposition graft between those soft tissues and the bony defect to allow the floor time to heal. An implant needs to support the orbital contents only during this healing phase. After the orbital floor is healed, the implant is simply a foreign body and is not required to maintain the position of the globe. Studies1-2 using absorbable implants to successfully reconstruct orbital floor fractures support this theory. SupraFoil is specifically designed for orbital floor repair. It is flexible yet rigid enough to support the orbital contents during the critical healing phase. The superiority of molded rigid implants vs semirigid implants such as MEDPOR TITAN, Silastic, or nylon sheeting is not supported in the literature.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles