This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:756-757.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

WE OCULOPLASTIC surgeons are mechanics at heart. We view the eyelid as a complex machine formed of tendons and pulleys, and our surgical procedures revolve around the shortening, lengthening, and tightening of different tissue constituents. The limitations of our current surgical techniques do not revolve around mechanical factors, which we can control with modern instrumentation, as much as they relate to our lack of a complete understanding of biology and our limited ability to control it. These limitations become apparent when analyzing the alloplastic materials used in oculoplastic surgery.

Several alloplastic materials have become available for eyelid and orbital reconstruction. Alloplastic materials have obvious advantages; most important, they are readily available without any donor site morbidity. The disadvantage of alloplastic materials is that they are a foreign body that the human body will attack. To accomplish its goal, the alloplastic material has to permanently alter the body's own tissue. This . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?