Porous orbital implants, wraps, and PEG placement in the pediatric population after enucleation
- PMID: 17499206
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.03.042
Porous orbital implants, wraps, and PEG placement in the pediatric population after enucleation
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate complications of various porous orbital implants and wrapping materials in the pediatric population after enucleation.
Design: A retrospective, comparative, nonrandomized study.
Methods: Between November 1992 and November 2006, patients younger than 15 years old were collected for study participation. They underwent enucleation with porous orbital implants primarily or secondarily at National Taiwan University Hospital. The authors used the hydroxyapatite (HA), Medpor, and Bioceramic orbital implant. The HA implant was wrapped with four different materials: donor sclera, Lyodura, porcine sclera, and Vicryl mesh. A part of HA implants and all bioceramic implants were wrapped with Vicryl mesh, added anteriorly with scleral patch grafts. All Medpor implants were unwrapped.
Results: Forty-seven cases had more than a two-year follow-up. The exposure rates according to implants and wraps were: donor sclera-wrapped HA (two of nine, 22%), porcine sclera-wrapped HA (three of three, 100%), Vicryl mesh-wrapped HA (one of five, 20%), and unwrapped Medpor (one of four, 25%). No exposure was found in four Lyodura-wrapped HA implants, and 22 Vicryl mesh-wrapped HA and Bioceramic implants with anteriorly scleral coating. The exposure rate was lower in cases with implants wrapped by our method and Lyodura than in those with implants wrapped by other materials (P < .001). Of 47 patients, 20 (42.5%) were fitted with peg-coupled prostheses and all had good prosthetic movements subjectively.
Conclusions: Different types of implants and wraps resulted in various exposure rates in the pediatric population. The modified wrapping technique may prevent porous implants from exposure in children.
Similar articles
-
Prevention of exposure of porous orbital implants following enucleation.Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 Jan;143(1):61-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2006.09.037. Epub 2006 Oct 25. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007. PMID: 17109809
-
Late exposure of the bioceramic orbital implant.Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jan;147(1):162-170.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.05.001. Epub 2008 Jun 24. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID: 18571617
-
Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite orbital implants a 15-year experience of 802 cases.Ophthalmology. 2008 Mar;115(3):566-572.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.06.014. Epub 2007 Sep 14. Ophthalmology. 2008. PMID: 17854900
-
Porous polyethylene orbital implant in the pediatric population.Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep;138(3):425-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.062. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004. PMID: 15364225 Review.
-
Orbital implants insertion to improve ocular prostheses motility.J Craniofac Surg. 2010 May;21(3):870-5. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d80904. J Craniofac Surg. 2010. PMID: 20485072 Review.
Cited by
-
Porous orbital implant after enucleation in retinoblastoma patients: indications and complications.Orbit. 2018 Dec;37(6):438-443. doi: 10.1080/01676830.2018.1440605. Epub 2018 Feb 20. Orbit. 2018. PMID: 29461921 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative study of modified and conventional secondary hydroxyapatite orbital implantations.Int J Ophthalmol. 2013 Oct 18;6(5):646-9. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.05.17. eCollection 2013. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013. PMID: 24195041 Free PMC article.
-
The effect of cancer therapies on pediatric anophthalmic sockets.Ophthalmology. 2011 Dec;118(12):2480-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.05.024. Ophthalmology. 2011. PMID: 21856015 Free PMC article.
-
Enucleation and evisceration: indications, complications and clinicopathological correlations.Int J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug 18;7(4):677-80. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.04.17. eCollection 2014. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014. PMID: 25161942 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical