Utilizing 3D-Printed Orbital Floor Stamps to Create Patient-Specific Implants for Orbital Floor Reconstruction

Towards Precision Ophthalmology: The Role of 3D Printing and Bioprinting in Oculoplastic Surgery, Retinal, Corneal, and Glaucoma Treatment

In the forefront of ophthalmic innovation, biomimetic 3D printing and bioprinting technologies are redefining patient-specific therapeutic strategies. This critical review systematically evaluates their application spectrum, spanning oculoplastic reconstruction, retinal tissue engineering, corneal transplantation, and targeted glaucoma treatments. It highlights the intricacies of these technologies, including the fundamental principles, advanced materials, and bioinks that facilitate the replication of ocular tissue architecture. The synthesis of primary studies from 2014 to 2023 provides a rigorous analysis of their evolution and current clinical implications. This review is unique in its holistic approach, juxtaposing the scientific underpinnings with clinical realities, thereby delineating the advantages over conventional modalities, and identifying translational barriers. It elucidates persistent knowledge deficits and outlines future research directions. It ultimately accentuates the imperative for multidisciplinary collaboration to enhance the clinical integration of these biotechnologies, culminating in a paradigm shift towards individualized ophthalmic care.

Patient-Specific Orbital Implants Vs. Pre-Formed Implants for Internal Orbital Reconstruction

PURPOSE

To compare the outcome of orbital blowout fracture repair by means of pre-formed porous-polyethylene titanium implants (PFI) vs patient-specific porous-polyethylene implants (PSI).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study. Baseline characteristics, ophthalmic examination results, ocular motility, fracture type, the timing of surgery, implant type, and final relative enophthalmos of all patients operated on for blow-out fractures in a single center were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (mean age 39 years, 9 females) were enrolled. Sixteen underwent fracture repair with PFI and 11 with PSI at 11 months (median) post-trauma. Mean follow-up duration was 1.1 years. Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in primary or vertical gaze diplopia (P = .03, χ²). Relative enophthalmos improved from -3.2 preoperative PFI to -1.7 mm postoperative PFI, and from -3.0 mm preoperative PSI to -1.1 mm postoperative PSI (P= .1). PSI patients had non-significantly less postoperative enophthalmos and globe asymmetry than PFI patients. The outcome was not influenced by previous surgery, age, sex, number of orbital walls involved in the initial trauma, or medial wall involvement (linear regression). Both groups sustained complications unrelated to implant choice.

CONCLUSION

Both PSI and PFI yielded good outcomes in this study. PSI may be a good alternative to PFI in primary or secondary orbital blowout fracture repair with less enophthalmos and globe asymmetry, in spite of the possible disadvantages of production time, a relatively larger design, and challenging insertion. Since it is a mirror image of the uninjured orbit, it may be beneficial in extensive fractures.