[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.90.95. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Editor's Correspondence
July 2007

Orbital Floor Fracture Repair

Author Affiliations

Correspondence: Dr Williams, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH England (rhodri.williams@uhb.nhs.uk).

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(4):300-301. doi:10.1001/archfaci.9.4.300

Correspondence: Dr Williams, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TH England (rhodri.williams@uhb.nhs.uk).

In response to the research letter by Majmundar and Hamilton,1 we would like to highlight some limitations of their article. We agree with the authors' ideals for implantable material for reconstruction of orbital fractures and that it should be easily shaped, but we would add that the material should also have the ability to retain its molded shape. SupraFOIL material (S. Jackson Inc, Alexandria, Virginia) will not retain its new shape, unlike some other materials, such as reinforced polyethylene (MEDPOR TITAN; Porex Surgical Products Inc, Newnan, Georgia) and titanium mesh. The cost argument is valid for all health equipment and interventions, but the material must be appropriate for the purpose for which it was intended.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×