Effects and complications of placement of motility coupling post in porous polyethylene orbital implants
- PMID: 18543399
- PMCID: PMC2408699
- DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B0820014
Effects and complications of placement of motility coupling post in porous polyethylene orbital implants
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects and complications of primary and secondary placements of motility coupling post (MCP) in the unwrapped porous polyethylene orbital implant (PPOI) following enucleation.
Methods: We investigated 198 patients who received PPOI implantation following the standard enucleation procedure in the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, from 2002 to 2004. These patients were subgrouped into PPOI-only patients (112 cases, received PPOI following enucleation), primary MCP patients (46 cases, received primary placement of MCP during PPOI operation), and secondary MCP patients (40 cases, received secondary placement of MCP 6 months after the initial surgery). Effects and complications among these three groups were compared.
Results: The PPOI-only patients took shorter treatment course when compared with other two MCP groups (P<0.001), without significant difference noted between the two MCP groups. However, the two MCP groups had better prosthetic motility than PPOI-only group (P<0.001), without significant difference between the two MCP groups. In the early stage, 2 eyes in the PPOI-only group and 1 eye in the primary MCP group had PPOI infection. In PPOI-only group, 3 (2.68%) eyes had PPOI exposure, which occurred after fitting the prostheses; 4 eyes (8.70%) in primary MCP group and 1 eye (2.50%) in secondary MCP had PPOI exposure, which occurred before fitting the prostheses. After prosthesis was fit successfully, the excessive discharge and granuloma were 33.9% and 1.79% in PPOI group-only, 53.3% and 8.9% in primary MCP group, and 52.5% and 7.5% in secondary MCP group, respectively.
Conclusion: Both primary and secondary placements of MCP into the PPOI following enucleation can help patients to obtain desirable prosthetic motility, but may be associated with more complications. The primary placement of MCP with skilled operation in selected patients is more recommendable than secondary placement.
Similar articles
-
Primary placement of a motility coupling post in porous polyethylene orbital implants.Arch Ophthalmol. 2000 Jun;118(6):826-32. doi: 10.1001/archopht.118.6.826. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000. PMID: 10865322
-
Complications of primary placement of motility post in porous polyethylene implants during enucleation.Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 May;143(5):828-834. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.01.049. Epub 2007 Mar 23. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007. PMID: 17362860
-
Late porous polyethylene implant exposure after motility coupling post placement.Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep;138(3):420-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.059. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004. PMID: 15364224
-
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.
-
Long-term complications of different porous orbital implants: a 21-year review.Br J Ophthalmol. 2017 May;101(5):681-685. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308932. Epub 2016 Jul 29. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017. PMID: 27474155 Review.
Cited by
-
Digital smartphone versus analogue methods of measuring orbital implant motility after enucleation.Eye (Lond). 2025 Jul 26. doi: 10.1038/s41433-025-03936-6. Online ahead of print. Eye (Lond). 2025. PMID: 40715692
References
-
- Hsu WC, Green JP, Spilker MH, Rubin PA. Primary placement of a titanium motility post in a porous polyethylene orbital implant: animal model with quantitative assessment of fibrovascular ingrowth and vascular density. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16(5):370–379. doi: 10.1097/00002341-200009000-00011. - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous