Comparison of MEDPOR and titanium plates in the treatment of orbital floor fractures: results and complications

Objective: To analyze the differences between the use of MEDPOR and titanium plates as osteosynthesis material in blow-out floor fractures.Method: A comparative, retrospective, observational, and cross-sectional study was carried out in patients who underwent reconstruction of the orbital floor with titanium or MEDPOR plates.For the comparison of results, statistical inferences with U-Mann-Whitney were used.Regarding the dichotomous qualitative variables, χ 2 Pearson was used.Results: Of the 40 fractures, 18 were reconstructed with MEDPOR plates and 22 with titanium plates.Using U Mann-Whitney test for independent samples, the difference in the frequency of complications between both groups was not significant (U = 132; Z = -1.902;p = 0.057); however, we can see a relevant trend in this regard in the average of complications presented in both groups (MEDPOR 0.56 ± 0.51 and titanium 1.36 ± 1.33).The reoperation variable presented a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0008) using Fisher's exact test, where the virtue of MEDPOR is evidenced in not requiring more surgeries.U Mann-Whitney test for independent samples was used to compare the duration in minutes of surgery in both groups.The test was not significant (U = 128; Z = -1.933;p = 0.053), but when calculating the effect size r = 0.306 was obtained, implying moderate clinical relevance.Conclusions: The frequency of complications between both groups was not significant.Patients operated on with MEDPOR had less need for surgical reintervention and less surgical time.