Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorCinar, Can
dc.contributor.authorArslan, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorBingol, Ugur Anil
dc.contributor.authorAydin, Yagmur
dc.contributor.authorCetinkale, Oguz
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T15:56:11Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T15:56:11Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn1049-2275
dc.identifier.issn1536-3732
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000003746
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11446/2239
dc.descriptionWOS: 000417057300059en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 28834831en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 ofwhich 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherLIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINSen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/SCS.0000000000003746en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAnatomicalen_US
dc.subjectclassificationen_US
dc.subjectorbital exenterationen_US
dc.subjectreconstructionen_US
dc.titleThe New Anatomical Classification System for Orbital Exenteration Defecten_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF CRANIOFACIAL SURGERYen_US
dc.departmentDBÜen_US
dc.identifier.issue7en_US
dc.identifier.volume28en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1687en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1693en_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0001-8838-8262en_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0001-9680-8482en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.department-temp[Cinar, Can -- Bingol, Ugur Anil] Yeditepe Univ, Fac Med, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Istanbul, Atasehir, Turkey -- [Arslan, Hakan -- Aydin, Yagmur -- Cetinkale, Oguz] Istanbul Univ, Cerrahpasa Med Fac, Dept Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Istanbul, Atasehir, Turkeyen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster