Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 917–927 | Cite as

Facial Reconstruction Using Porous High-Density Polyethylene (Medpor): Long-Term Results

Original Article General Reconstruction

Abstract

Medpor is a biocompatible, porous, high-density polyethylene implant material used as a skeleton substitute. During the last two decades, it has been successfully applied for aesthetic contour enhancement and at reconstruction of the facial skeleton. Reports on the long-term host tissue tolerance of Medpor are sparse. Use of foreign materials in nasal reconstruction has always been and still is controversial. The main contra-argument maintains that it is not known how alloplastic materials are tolerated by the human body in the long term. This study brings such data concerning the biocompatibility of Medpor. The author has 16 years of experience working with Medpor implants, including its use in rhinoplasty, chin augmentation, and malar augmentation. In this prospective study from 1996 to 2012, Medpor was used in 118 implants for 102 patients. The most frequent indications were nose deformity (n = 61), chin hypoplasia (n = 33), and malar hypoplasia (n = 6). The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 15 years (median, 7 years). Of 42 difficult nasal reconstructions performed with the assistance of Medpor, 28 were catastrophe noses that had undergone two to four previous surgeries elsewhere. A total of 19 patients had saddle nose deformity. Of the nasal reconstructions, 85 % had a smooth clinical course, with results remaining stable during the observation time. Five biopsies confirmed soft tissue ingrowths and collagen deposition, with subsequent vascularization. All complications could be mastered. Two dorsal struts and two chin implants required trimming. Infection occurred in three rhinoplasty cases, and partial extrusion occurred in two cases. All augmented chins and malar prominences were firm and bony-like at palpation. Of the 106 Medpor implants in the followed-up patients, some were trimmed or removed, but 97 implants (91 %) remained unchanged. Implantation of porous polyethylene in the facial region is a safe procedure. Currently, Medpor seems to be the best alloplastic material available as a facial bone substitute. It is long-lasting, with a low frequency of complications, morbidity similar to procedures involving autologous grafts, and high overall patient satisfaction.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Keywords

Alloplastic material Chin augmentation High-density polyethylene Malar augmentation Medpor Nasal reconstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    Shanbhag A, Friedman HI, Augustine J, von Recum AF (1990) Evaluation of porous polyethylene for external ear reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 32:24–36Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wellisz T (2001) Clinical experience with medpor porous polyethylene implant. Aesthet Plast Surg 17:339–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yaremchuk MJ (2003) Facial skeletal reconstruction using porous polyethylene implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 111:1818–1827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song-Lin Y, Yang-Hong Z, Zhi D, Quing-Yang L, Guang-Yu M, Yi-Ping J (2009) Combined fascial flap and expanded skin flap for enveloping Medpor framework in microtia reconstruction. Aesthet Plast Surg 33:518–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yaremchuk MJ (2001) Infraorbital rim augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 107:1585–1592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Türegun M, Sengezer M, Güler M (1998) Reconstruction of the saddle nose deformities using porous polyethylene implant. Aesthet Plast Surg 22:38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Niechajev I (1999) Porous polyethylene implants for nasal reconstruction: Clinical and histologic studies. Aesthet Plast Surg 23:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karnes J, Salisbury M, Schaeferle M, Beckham P, Ersek RA (2000) Porous high-density polyethylene implants (Medpor) for nasal dorsum augmentation. Aesthet Surg J 20:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niechajev I (2009) Facial reconstruction by porous high-density polyethylene (Medpor). In: Proceedings: book of abstracts. 11th ESPRAS congress, Rhodes, Greece, pp 157–158Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spector M, Flemming WR, Kreutner A, Sauer BW (1976) Bone growth into porous high-density polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 10:595–603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niechajev I, Haraldsson PO (1996) Two methods of anaesthesia for outpatient rhinoplasty. Aesthet Plast Surg 20:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keefe MS, Keefe MA (2009) An evaluation of the effectiveness of different techniques for the intraoperative infiltration of antibiotics into alloplasic implants for use in facial reconstruction. Arch Facial Plast Surg 11:246–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neovius E, Engstrand T (2010) Craniofacial reconstruction with bone and biomaterials: review over the last 11 years. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:1615–1623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sajjadian A, Rubinstein R, Nagshineh N (2010) Current status of grafts and implants in rhinoplasty: Part I. Autologous grafts. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:40e–49ePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niechajev I (2011) Skoogs rhinoplasty revisited. Aesthet Plast Surg 35:808–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gürlek A, Frat C, Aydogan H, Celik M, Ersöz-Oztürk A, Kinc H (2007) Augmentation mentoplasty with diced high-density porous polyethylene. Plast Reconstr Surg 119:684–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sheen J (1988) A clinical assessment of alloplastic materials in secondary rhinoplasty. In: Rees TD, Baker DC, Tabbal N (eds) Rhinoplasty problems and controversies. CV Mosby, St. Louis, pp 384–390Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tardy EM (1997) Cartilage graft reconstruction of the nose. In: Rhinoplasty: the art and science, vol 2, WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 649–656Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubin JP, Yaremchuk MP (1997) Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials used in facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 100:1336–1353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sajjadian A, Nagshineh N, Rubinstein R (2010) Current status of grafts and implants in rhinoplasty: Part II. Homologous grafts and allogenic implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 125:99e–119ePubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lidingö ClinicStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations